nobody likes it. we're going to have to find sources to do that.you get to tf diminishing returns. people want less. there is a recognition that people drive cars. nobody is opposed to people driving cars. if we are going to have a level, walkable city, this is all about neighbors its having amenities for people to walk to. this is about making communities in san francisco completely level. the way we do that is having transit and great corridors and making sure that the housing is near where those people are. making sure there are not isolated where they do not have access to jobs and transportation. that is at the heart of what this document is trying to

achieve. nobody is suggesting this. there is not any zoning that allows them to propose such a change. it would have to come to the commission and the board of supervisors. i do not see how any of that would happen anyway. >> these do not seem to jive with reality. we were taught about hunter shipyard and treasure island. given the financial state of where things are right now and the potential loss of redevelopment, we do not know if those projects will ever be realized. saying that we do not have to worry about it because those projects are not in the pipeline, it is not realistic. our densities are concentrated. people live in san francisco in communities that are well-

established have amenities. that is a reality that we have to deal with. we can plan for their being 10,000 homes. most people are going to still prefer to live in the more established neighborhoods. we have to make sure that there is housing in those neighborhoods for people to live in. i see this document as trying to do all of those things. it is not the thesis i would write if i were a student tried to create a housing element for a municipality. it does not meet the high-minded ideals that we talk about in san francisco. it does the best at striking a balance. there are all of these fears about the document that i do not see how they are realized. i do take issue with policy 1.4

that was brought up by commissioner miguel. having been through the eastern neighborhoods planning process, i know that it takes a lot of resources and time and effort. it sounds like an sud or pud could qualify for this planning process. i would hate to see that happen. within a quarter a mile, this is a language radius sort of thing. you get to a certain number of acres. it would be better to say a few blocks or parcels. somebody wants to build a community center two parcels down the block. we need to be careful about the language around that. we spend a lot of time talking about language that material --

materially and does not change the way we make decisions. vice-president miguel: a couple of comments. i am quite satisfied with the statement that is in there. it could be eliminated. it is necessary in my mind to be in there so that the public understands what cc and r means about what can and cannot be done. it is a very confusing thing to a lot of the populace. as far as comments on jobs being viable, i have no idea how anybody could judge that. you have the situations with the dot come boom and bust. it is up to the entrepreneur

worth as to whether something will be viable today or six months from today. that one does not do it for me. this is a policy document that cannot be all things to all people. it does not work that way. it makes some attempt at it. that is about as good as it can get. i am about to move on items 19 a and b with my former suggestion of eliminating the two words in 1.4. >> sond. >> i just want to read a few different options. the case report provides a few recommendatis. we stt with the document th was generated that included the different amendments to part 1.

>> i would include those. >> do we have to read those into the record? referencing the document is fine? in number 19, you have the ceqa findings. i will read the a new version. the new version would be acd has indicated based on their preliminary review that the 2009 housing element is complied with the state housing element law. the state will issue a finding by april 12, 2011. the following page we like to add a clause to the sentence. the agency has generated over 50% to affordable housing.

they have found based on preliminary movreviews that the housing element is compliant. >> i have those in front of me. >> those are three different sets. you could add those to your motion. thank you. >> commissioners sugaya? are you sure? commissioner moore? commissioner moore: the only area where i am not comfortable with what commissioner miguel said it was this part. and this is a suggestion. it holds the possibility for the smaller guys to have a say. we have neighborhoods with very small blocks and very few homes.

these are further work out. i would rather have their language rather than singularly i would ask that you accept that as an amendment. >> not a problem. >> i just have a few comments. i think that you made it clear that a viable is not a word that we need to include. it is implied in that policy statement. to the extent that we can work as a city to make manufacturing viable, we need to move in this direction. we do not want to talk about whether or not it is viable.

there are certain things we can do to ensure the viability of certain industries. affordable housing, to the extent that we can keep it as a singular goal is necessary. preserving affordable housing is critical. actually, there have been instances where it has been encouraged and there has been at actualize it that affordable housing has been replaced when it has been demolished. that is something we have seen in the city on a couple of occasions. we have seen it move in that direction. sound affordable housing that is rent-controlled was demolished. secondary units, as i heard it,

it is not something that is being discouraged through this document. the idea of employing existing city residents is critical. that is the idea to reduce vehicle motor trips. that being said, in the future, the city needs to look at policies are brown parking. -- around parking. i think it is contradictory and even a contradiction when you look at the transit first policy that has been in the city for many years to continue to encourage one to one parking in that kind of development. there are efforts to preserve neighborhood character.

that is something that one should be sympathetic to. i think that is laid out here in a lot of different ways. not just in terms of the physical aspect of the neighborhood, which in many instances, we are always very sensitive. we encourage certain changes in that way. the demographic makeup of certain neighborhoods. there are people who werein the city family for generations. i do not think that people who are working should be necessarily excluded from the intent of this document. i do not see that anywhere. i am glad there is a balanced in who is being encouraged to remain here. it is not just oriented towards what we have seen as far as

displacement and other things over the past few years. when we talk about density equity, that is something that we have to be very sensitive as we implement it. that is something that we need to keep in mind. i am looking forward to both being discussed. not just equity density, but equity and density. to move ahead with those things. >> i do not see any more names. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for adoption of the ceqa findings and amending be resolution. amending the amended resolution for the general plan. my understanding is that the motion includes the additions

and clarifications that acd has signed off on. the two alterations that staff read into the record as well as the first suggestions that were offered and the one suggested by commissioner miguel to change parcells -- parcels. the first suggestion will supersede that? with that motion -- >> what about the case report? >> i mentioned those. >> i am sorry. >> with those -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president olague: aye.

>> at the motion passes unanimously. >> is there any general public comment on items not on today's calendar? seeing none -- i was not sure if you were standing up or not. >> commissioners -- >> your name? >> gerardo. i just want to encourage you to have a hearing about water supply. we have these show me the water laws that will be kicking in in a few years. according to our calculations, water supply is sufficient to cover the unit's you referred to before that were in the pipeline. beyond that, no.

the assistant general manager who is writing the mandated update of the urban water management plan stated on tuesday, i will read you the quote again. they have a projected shortfall of the available water supply to meet its level of service goals and its contractual obligations. a very serious statement. the issue of availability always gets punted by the planning department's staff based on a few reports. you have to look at the latest report to see who -- to see where you are. the latest is expanding supply. many of you know that it does not expand supply. the goal was 300 mgd.

this was cut back to 265. we have agreed to assurance in non dred years. that leaves 81 for us under the best conditions. for that, you have to subtract 6.1. that leaves the retail customers outside of the city. then you have the unaccounted for water. you have what the commercial and industrial sector uses. somebody needs to sit down and go through the numbers. actually go through the numbers. contrary to what was said before about 58 gallons a day per capita, we are down to nearly 51. we have done our part in conservation in the residential sector. demand is heartening. there is nowhere else to go.

as far as what i referred to earlier, the decision to give up another 7.4 milligallons for the fish and the crystal springs project, and this is really serious. this was not factored in in anything that staff gave you on that topic. i would urge you to have a hearing after april 27 when the draft update of the plan comes out. it is such an important topic. it is being hunted down the road continually in the discussions here at the planning commission. when you look at treasure island and hunters point and merced, and transit-oriented identification -- densification,

you may put us in a situation to have to go out and buy water from the delta. we are scaling back the recycled. you are not going to be able to provide as much ground water as was planned a couple of years ago. we are not going to do desalination. where is the water going to come from? conservation is pretty much a done deal now. i think it is an important topic and i urge you to have a hearing. >> is there any additional general public comment? >> for the record, that was not my house. >> i neglected to thank staff, especially kirsten, sarah, and jessica for all of their work last three years on the housing

element. i want to thank them for all of that incredible work. they have been heroic in this effort as well as susan and the rest of the city attorney's. thank you all for this. thank you, commissioners, for your actions. >> i also wanted to thank you, having been through the earlier housing element in 2003-2004. in much better time around. >> general public comment is closed, obviously. meeting is adjourned.