2004 and 2009 housing elements. the 2001 -- 2009 housing element is in second draft and has not been adopted. the e.i.r. cannot be adopted on the assumptions made on the housing element which is not complete. we have retained council to prepare comments on this e.i.r. the jordan park improvement association objects to certification of the e.i.r. and approval of the proposed project. please grant the 90-day continuance on this matter. thank you, richard warner. thank you very much. >> council community housing organization, calvin welsh. my remarks are only three pages. this is the third housing element that i've been involved in, only the second that had an

e.i.r. and i've come to understand that housing elements approach being a near religious experience. but with mist cities hims and what is -- mysticisms and what is revealed is hids and there's blue smoke and it's extraordinary, on especially with -- i commend director ramen who says the proof of the pudding comes in the application of the policies on a day-to-day basis which is even more a mystical experience when one realizes how they're applied. there are four basic objections the council community -- my name is calvin welsh, community housing organization, that we all have related to affordability. we believe the deir misstates, is both inaccurate and incomplete in measuring the

city's failure and the environmental impacts of the city's failure of meeting its annual goals of affordable housing development goals. the e.i.r. makes near religious assertions, increased density on page vf-48, increased density, particularly when located near areas rich in transit generally produce lower vehicle ownership rates and therefore generate less parking demands than what otherwise occur. absolutely no proof. absolutely no supporting data, indeed. you find on appendix f on the cd-rom on page 25 of appendix s no trip generations are provided for this study. how is it you can so safely assume that increased density, particularly when located near transit rich areas generally produce lower vehicle ownership.

second question, does affordable housing have the same transit and traffic demands that market rate housing has? isn't that an important question? don't you make individual project decisions based on that, not analyzed in this deir? not analyzed. how can you possibly do that? and call this a complete or an accurate document. do you know that there are fewer uses of the term "affordable housing" or permanently affordable housing" in the proposed 2009 housing element than in the 2004 housing element? why a reduction in the policy of affordability? not explained. not even pointed out that there are fewer use of those terms. i would love to be asked questions to get to the questions that have been raised good affordable production in san francisco but my time is

up. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? >> mr. president and commissioners, my name is john vargas. it's really pretty strange to see a process in this city of having the housing element being somehow slowly prepared and put in some sort of official shape over a 10-year period and still not be in place. we have a housing plan that has not been in place 10 years. and then when it comes to the point of reviewing in the environment or impact report

that is supposed to address the ceqa aspects of these proposed housing elements, and we have two of them. then when it comes to creating a public review period, we choose to do it in the summer vacation period for our families and students and everything else. i have to now appear to express apologies for hiroshi procuda of the san francisco neighborhood. he's on an alaska cruise and has been there several months and usually takes them in the summer. but after labor day he'd be here. and it is really unfortunate to see something that's so fundamental as the housing master plan of the city be -- that it would be heard

adequately in the public review period of 60 days in the summer and you've got 10 years to put it together. there's some sort of lopsided aspect into what is being expected of the department and the professionals and the commission and what is expected of the public and the people in the city who expect to be served by this document. so i urge you to take into curious account the letter from cassity chenzi who successfully demonstrated in the courts it was an error to not have an environmental impact report prepared for the housing element which was an absurd decision and the letter asks for a 90-day continuance beyond

the august 16 date, 90 days to have 2009 housing element that won't be finished until the october. we'll be talking about the e.i.r. in the 2009, that have the date also fall in october. thank you for the public comment period. president miguel: thank you. >> bob friesein. thank you for your attention. i didn't know until noon i would speak today and ironically, the person representing the 14 neighborhood groups was on a construction site. so i'm here in that regard not to speak at this point on individual elements of the housing element but to congratulate the department for the fact they got it done in the volume sitting in front of bill lee. it's extraordinarily difficult in part because of the summer but in part because of the complexity of the documents and in part because of the fact it's very difficult to get all the component parts and

commentors together to give the kind of statement where we can say with some hopefully confidence we'll have an agreement rather than a dispute down the line. i absolutely will do any best as we head down into the very recent past to get together, not only the spokesman for the neighborhood groups but the coalition of the san francisco neighborhood groups, bukrowitz and vicente representing the advisory units not just including district 2 and 8 but all those that are interested. i would like to stress again to john vargas the 90 day from the august 16 being an appropriate time, if for some reason you cannot do 90 days, at least 60 days but not from june 30 for the reasons stated by mr. vargas. president miguel: thank you. are there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner olague.

commissioner olague: i was going to ask mr. welsh to elaborate on his comments earlier. if you don't mind, yeah, we had a small speaker list and that's why i didn't ask you at the time. >> it seemed to me, two extraordinary statements made by commissioners, one that somehow we don't know the affordable -- affordability level of residents of permanently affordable housing in san francisco and the data hasn't been presented. i've been in this commission chambers two heads of the mayor's office of house having reported to this chamber, to this body, matt franklin and before matt franklin, marsha rosen. nonprofit housing developers are required each year to submit a report on the income levels and qualifications of each household member of continuing to reside in their

unit. that's to the city and county of san francisco. in addition, every two years, if a develop has h.u.d. money it must file such a report or similar report with h.u.d. we know exactly how many people and what qualifications they have and whether or not they meet the requirements of the development of housing. that's how we provide housing in san francisco. we provide housing to people at certain income levels. and the city tasks to make sure that those people continue to meet those income levels. it is a base misstatement of fact that a, that information has not been given to you and b, that somehow it has escaped our minds. second of all, it isn't 50% of the housing that is subsidized in san francisco. folks, it's 100%. the largest housing subsidy in this country is mortgaged tax deduction.

100% of the housing market in this country is subsidized by the federal and state government. so why do you want to point out or hold out affordable housing as being somehow subsidized and not somehow paying its way is absurd. all housing in this counry is subsidized by the government, directly or indirectly. the largest single housing subsidy of the federal government over $2 trillion is the mortgage tax deduction, in addition, anybody who owns rental property knows you get to deduct expenditures for rent from your federal taxes as well. so it's all subsidized, folks. the problem with housing in san francisco and the problem of this element in the statement of the draft environmental report is that it takes it out

of the context, hopefully the sb-375 will try to put back into the context of transit, employment, and housing. it's a great triad. we can't simply believe we can solve the housing problem by this simple housing solution or that housing type. it's -- housing is a function of income. it's about who works here. housing, it's not housing that determines who lives here, it's who works here determines who lives here. and if we do not understand that we have to reach some sort of balance between employment opportunities, income, housing and transit, then smart growth the way we practice it in this city, as i say in the paper, is silly. we are basically housing a work

force, a commuting work force in san francisco. by missing our affordable targets, we're not creating jobs in san francisco that pay enough. the average worker. to afford the average housing costs in san francisco. 12% of our population can afford to buy a home in san francisco. 12%. so who's buying the market rate units that we overproduce in terms of the regional goals every year. it's not san franciscoians. are they taking public transit? not hardly. they drive. or they're in minivans that are all over central san francisco, taking people to google. that's the reality. and for the draft environmental

impact report to ignore that reality, to pretend it doesn't exist, to look in this narrow way at only housing inputs and not the totally of housing jobs and transportation, then i think we keep chasing our tails and asking ourselves kind of silly questions, how is it we're not housing the middle class. we are housing the middle class, they just don't work here, they work somewhere else. and i mean, the question becomes and i want to invite each and every one of you to the university of san francisco on the 14th and 15th of august for a community congress that is among other things going to try to address how do we employ san franciscoians. in san francisco. since we -- i've been doing this, we've gone from 60% of the jobs in san franciscoians being nailed by san

franciscoians to about 48%. it's very hard to believe that that doesn't have a dramatic impact on housing. and housing policy. and that's what i try to do in the paper and i think that's what has failed to be done in this environmental impact report is to fully understand and be informed of that relationship between jobs, housing, and transit. and we really do know who we house in affordable housing. we really do. we don't house young people in senior housing. we don't house well people in aids housing. we really have that figured out. we know how to do that and we to do that and it's a disservice, sir, for you to imply that we don't. it's beyond a disservice.

>> calvin, one of the things we ⌞> calvin, one of the things we should look at to make sure because when one person has a two-bedroom, how do you explain that affordable housing? how can you get no one to address that issue? one person gets a two-bedroom affordable housing, tell me, calvin. you've been around a long time, you would know. >> that is not part of the housing element. commissioner lee: one person gets away with it, how do you know other people don't get away with it? >> i have know idea if the children went to college. i have no idea what you're talking about. but your assertion that we have no idea who is in affordable -- annual reports are required and done -- commissioner lee: the mayor's office was asked to give us information. [inaudible] >> let's not have an argument on this one, mr. welsh.

do you really want to go there? commissioner antonini: we want to talk about the accuracy of the report and the only thing i would say is that i did not see in some of the talk about special needs, i didn't see a comparison of our special needs relative to other parts of the bay area and other parts of the country, and i guess some kind of an assessment of our special needs population relative to those other areas and, you know, any kind of causative factors to why that's the case. i think that's important to know. the other thing was the comment period. and i know there have been some discussions about extending it, and i would be in favor of the 90 days, the extension which would be, i think, september 30, i believe it began on june 30. the one caveat i have and maybe you can answer it, i mentioned

this earlier, is there a threat of some funding if we go too long, but again the entire housing element goes on, this is only the deir. and my concern is this, as we know, we went through a long process to get 2004 passed and it was challenged in court and the challenge was sustained and so, therefore, we have to make sure that whatever is in this document addresses what the basis of the challenge is and it is a long and complicated document and actually, some of the housing element isn't even finished yet but the analysis is. so one point made by some of the commentors was we want to make sure the actual -- most of the comment of -- content of the housing element is pretty well complete, so we know you can assess its impacts. >> i think there's a misunderstanding about that.

the reason it's a draft is because you've not approved the e.i.r. you can't approve a final version of anything. it is the department review under state law and why it's entitled the draft. the draft is complete as far as our proposed language. >> thanks. president miguel: commissioner olague. [inaudible] commissioner olague: there doesn't seem to be a support for 90 days but i'll encourage 60 days, then. the end of august, the last day of august. as some kind of a compromise because i do believe -- president miguel: motion? commissioner olague: a motion, i guess. it's not a motion, i'd just like to request it.

>> consensus. >> commissioners, from your comments and the president can make that determination and direct staff to extend the comment period. >> and i started that discussion with that and would ask to extend the comment period until the last day of august. >> yes. and just for the record, this is sarah jones from the major environmental analysis session of the planning department and am also acting for the e.r.o. at this time and we will extend the comment period to august 31. i don't know what day of the week that is. commissioner olague: i thank mr. welsh for his comments for clarifying things. president miguel: thank you. we will take a 15-minute break. commissioner olague: thank number 11. general plan amendment updating environmental protection element, maps one and two. >> good evening. i'm with the department. this case is a proposed

amendment of the general plan. it contains several maps showing noise levels throughout the city. they were created in 1974. the proposal for you today is just to amend the maps so they reflect current noise levels. it contains the city's policies reducing noise impact and enforcing noise emission standards to reduce conflicts between different land uses. conflicts can be reduced through planning, architectural design and acoustical standards. the elements includes two noise maps. the first on the left shows background noise level throughout city. the map on the right shows thoroughfield noise levels and

again they were put together in 19674. -- 1974. the policy on the noise maps were used by agencies to enforce noise control standards. it includes the department of public health. the department of building inspection. the police department and the entertainment chigs. -- commission. they are also used to implelt the state building code requirements for construction of new residential builds where the background noise eck seeds 60 december -- exceeds 60 decibels. there have been improvements in measuring and monitoring noise levels since then. so the city has actually been working on updating these maps for a number of years. in the fall of 2008, the city adopted an updated noise control ordinance which is contained in

article 29 of the police code. the previous version of the ordinance, which is enforced by the department of public health, was essentially unenforceable because the noise standards were tied to zoning regulations that were in place in the 1970's, many of which no longser exist. the recently adopted police code divide it into three categories. residential, commercial and industrial and public uses. also amended the way the day city uses land levels. charles foster and associates developed maps of the background noise levels. e.p.w. verified the noise levels contained in the map to ensure

it was accurate. analysis of the noise levels in san francisco, the department of public health determined that the noise created by large volumes of trucks, buses, transit and other vehicles on highways and major thorough fairs was the largest single contributor to background noise levels in san francisco. six noise sources such as industrial uses and commercial uses contributed very little to the ambient noise levels. so as a result, since there is no significant difference between the background noise levels and thorough fare noise levels it is recommended the commission revise the maps first removing the old map twos which shows thoroughfair noise levels updating map one which shows background noise levels

throughout the city by using the department of public works recently developed map on background noise and this -- this is resulting map that we're asking the commission to adopt. the department determined on may 26 that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review and on july 1, the commission adopted resolution 18126, which initiated this amendment. so tonight, we're requesting you that in your packets there is a direct resolution and border ordinance. we're recommending that the commission adopt the draft resolution and approving the amendment that would do thee things. update map one.

delete map two, which is thoroughfair noise levels and delete the text. this completes my presentation. i would be glad to answer any questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. the only thing i would add in addition, is that actually the recreation and park department also makes use of this when they are authorizing music festivals or amplified sound because the neighborhoods insist on the reference to background noise and that. >> thanks for that addition commissioner miguel. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: do we take into consideration the noise of the wind? because it looks like the

quietest place is the top of twin peaks. >> i agree. >> i would like to move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners on the motion to approve -- roll call vote . >> thank you. >> commissioners are on item number 12, >> before you start, i have to ask for recusal. the company was actually under contract to tjpa to do some survey work.

i think that counts even though this is coming from public works. >> move to recuse commissioner sugaya. [roll call vote] >> commissioner sugaya is recused. >> good evening, commissioners. planning department staff. before you this evening is a request for findings of conformity with the genel plan for a package of proposed partial street vacations as well as the conveyance of that property to the powers authority. a general plan referal is required before any action on the public right of way or sale of public property. you're probably very familiar with the transit center. it will be a new expanded bus

and rail decision on the site of the existing terminal. at the corner of first and mission streets. this first phase of the transit center project includes construction of the above grade transit center including the bus decks and a public park on the roof as well as a low grade train station as well as the bus ramps leading to and from the bay bridge. so a series of strait -- are necessary to -- street -- are necessary to move forward with this project. first the transit center building itself above grade passes over primarily over two streets, freemont and first street. and additionally, the building, as it has been designed and is moving forward, has