we used the 1990 president bush element with an updated data and needs analysis that was of data and data and needs analysis. the presumption is that you are using a housing element that is compliant with state law. we also considered a reduced project alternatives that is per the direction of the ceqsa -- ceqa guidelines. these policies had been joined by the court. that version of the housing element differs from the 1990 element in a couple of ways.

one has to do with the mechanism encouraging affordability which do not in and of themselves have physical environmental impact but are substantially different between the 2004 housing element. under the 2004 alamance, there is greater protection of historical resources than existed under the 1990's alamance in order to provide for flexibility, we looked at an alternative that was not required under seek what -- under ceqa. that was another alternative that was considered. that covers the range of alternatives in the eir and i

can speak to the additional issues. >> i think someone mentioned that the alternatives were either items that reduce the impact to transit given that that was unidentified significant impact. the other one was that you would cross off alternatives that potentially don't meet the objectives. i'm wondering what some of those alternatives that you had considered >> the impact identified in the i r was one where under the growth projections to the horizon here, we found that certain of the corridors might be about their capacity standards by that time.

we presumed that the housing element could contribute to that excess capacity utilization although we did not really have a mechanism to identify the exact quantity. we identified that as a potential contribution to that impact. that is an impact that could be mitigated with additional service but we are not in a position to declare that that would definitively occur. we have identified this as a significant unavoidable impact. we do not have a mechanism to identify the exact contribution of the housing element to that alternatives and we could not determine which alternatives might reduce that contribution

to a less than considerable level. the additional alternatives that were suggested by the appellants at the time of the draft eir had to do with alternatives that focused on just providing capacity to achieve the 31,000 units. there was also an alternative suggested that involved no additional rezoning in the city beyond what had already occurred at the time that the notice of preparation was given as well as that which was given which suggested a revision to the zoning. we assessed those alternatives in details and comments and responses document. we are not required to consider alternatives that are not feasible or do not attain the

major objectives of the project and that was our conclusion about those various alternatives. >> are there any additional questions? at this time, why don't we hear from -- >> i know that you covered the potential transit impact and the response was for waste water management and also supply. can you address other infrastructure and service impacts? kind of growth would this have, how would this impact the services and other infrastructure needs for the city?

>> we fully evaluated the impact to public services. part of that was to send to the service providers a letter showing the projected amount and to ask for a determination whether they believed that the housing element could impact their ability to provide services. >> can you discuss that if the population grows, can we absorb this population growth in our current plans?

>> there is the issue of emergency access. this is all so regarding the availability of public services. disaster prepared his plans in and of themselves are a topic that we look at. that would be beyond the scope of this. >> explain why you think that that is beyond the scope. >> when we conduct environmental analysis, we are considering a set of designated topics and significant issues within those

topics. one of the topics that is specifically called out having to do with physical impact has to do with the emergency access, and emergency routes so that was addressed in the transportation analysis. this is a transportation- related issue. then again, the public service issues which are addressed in the public section. as to any requirements around disaster preparedness, i'm going to refer to our city attorney on that issue. >> there is no specific requirements for an eir to evaluate the specifics on the plan. this did look at the impact on

police and fire. if you look at seismic safety, we did look at traffic routes, that kind of thing. there is no specific requirement that looks at the disaster service plan. >> the other thing to point out is that there is one of the other 10 of the nine elements of the plan which is specifically about that issue. >> can you summarize the main points of that? >> the community safety elements, our plan consists of 10 alamance. that is why it is had to have these conversations focusing on

housing. the updates are something we have been working on for a couple of years. this is directly hand-in-hand with the mayor, particularly when he was the city administrator. he has a couple of corresponding plans including a disaster recovery plan that is being directed through the -- office which is supposed to be a plan of how the city will recover and come back after an earthquake. the bigger issue is not how many people vote what do we do. i have a number of strategies that we would be happy to come and give with our partners at the department of emergency services that would be helpful. >> are there any additional

questions or follow ups? at this time, why don't we see if there are any members of the public which would like to speak in support of the i r -- the eir. >> good evening, supervisors. i would like to commend the planning department for their work. to us, a successful element should give us support on three issues, housing affordability, environmental values, increasing use of transit and decrease in the use of automobile. then density equity, the idea that they are all equal and the changing growth is not the fault to the east. it is two years late or more

than two years late. this is opposed by people that expect that the housing element to deliver less light, lest density, and more parking and yet are utterly silent on solutions for affordability and density equity. their objection seems to be that after all of these years, astonishingly, there has been insufficient notice and process. i cannot fathom what the city would expect to achieve by sending this back. the idea that the single-family home neighborhoods aren't risk to this housing element is a total red herring. we have never heard a proposal anywhere that would put our families at risk. this proves how utterly broken

ceqa is. i urge you to uphold the work the planning department has done. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to speak? seeing none, why don't we hear from the appellate for a final 3 minute rebuttal. >> this provides a policy basis to undermine the density. the director always tells you what it is not that he never tells you what it is.

it is the constitution for development and it provides new strategies to incentivize development that were not in the 1990's. one of those is getting rid of the party and getting rid of the density limits. this also reduces protection for the open space and gardens. until you approve these, you can not approve these policies. the zoning must be consistent. it has to carry out these policies or not be consistent and it would be illegal under the planning code. the zoning is step two. this is step one.

this definitely undermines the character and these changes were never discussed that the community advisory board. we have never heard why they were made and where they came from. the only thing that they have said is that some people did not want to be excluded from the process. that is a false argument. no one was ever going to be exploited. the language had neighborhood supported planning. that gave the residence of the area as the primary role in the process although everyone would be involved. they pulled the rug out from under them and they changed it to community-supported. the groups will have equal status and maybe they have a role but i don't believe they should have equal status with the residents of the neighborhood that have invested.

as to alternatives, i want to say that the record is clear that there is way more capacity needed until 2014. the city refused to look at the less density alternative. they brushed it off in two sentences in the eir. they said "the reduced land use alternative would have a lower total number of units but this would reflect a reduced number of units and was determined not to meet the goals. >> does anyone have any follow- up questions? unless there are any questions any of the parties, this hearing has been held and closed. thank you very much. colleagues, items 13-15 are in

the hands of the board. >> a motion to move forward item number 13 and table 14 and 15. >> a motion to approve the final eir which involves tabling items 14 and 15. is there a second? any discussion? if we can take a vote on that item. >> aye. >> aye.; >> aye. >> aye. >> aye >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no.

>> aye. >> no. >> no. >> colleagues, the eir has been finally certified. if we can now go to our adoption without committee reference calendar. >> item 16-21 are being considered for immediate adoption without reference. they will be acted upon by a single vote. >> would anyone like to sever any of these items? if we can take a roll call vote on item 16-21. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> these motions are approved and resolutions adopted. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individuals. on behalf of supervisor mirkarimi, for the late mr. james said sen. on behalf of the full board, for the late mayor of san carlos. >> is any more business in front of the board? >> that concludes our business. >> we are returned for the evening. -- adjourned for the evening.

them down to get it in my hands. i did try. but it is no longer valid in any other location. and it may be that the police

department has maybe gotten their hands on the liquor license. i am not sure. we could ask. in addition, we issued a director's order revising the security plan at missed like the club -- at mist nightclub. there were seven separate instances in or around club mist that resulted in police reports. there was a meeting to discuss reports about breaches in security that were indicated in the reports that we were getting. based on that meeting, additional conditions were imposed on mist's permit via the security plan. to this point, i think we are doing much better over there.

i do not have any indication that they are not following their new restriction. lastly, there was a director's order revising the security plan issued to 550 barnveld, related to an incident that happened on march 25 where police reported a weapon being fired inside the night club from the stage. a shell casing was found inside, although no one was reported wounded. again, staff and they the station -- and bayview station met with the owner and manager to discuss the breach and how conditions in their security plan would close that breach. there have not been any further instances at all.

we are hopeful that was an effective treatment of the problem. vice chair joseph: i have just a couple of things, questions. on the promoters permit -- would organizations like pride and folsom street fair have to apply? >> i will have to look. it is possible they would have to register. again, this is not a permit. this is simply a registration. it will take all of 10 minutes. you go on-line, and it is free. vice chair joseph: when did you say that might be working? >> mid-june. vice chair joseph: also come up with 550 barneveld, is the manager of the club on the permit? >> she is not. vice chair joseph: don't we need to have somebody who is on the permit there when they are open?

>> i do not believe that is something that is a requirement in the law. it is a practice that i encourage. the permit has names of individuals who are present. but that isn't all the kermit -- but that is an old permit, issued before the entertainment commission. it is possible to ask someone, but that is not how it is now. vice chair joseph: in keeping with that, 550 usually does pat downs. how did a gun get there? >> i cannot be certain. but after discussion, and given all the information, we got the sense that this was part of the promoter's group of -- part of the performer's guests, and may not have been put through rigorous security.

vice chair joseph: so all of the performers and people who come along are now going to be -- >> absolutely. vice chair joseph: last but not least, in the spirit of self congratulations, i would like to congratulate commissioners perez and meko on a really great event. you did a great job, and you are not even in the event business. [laughter] >> thank you. good night. commissioner meko: regarding mist and barneveld, can you show us the security requirements? >> i apologize for not bringing those files with me. we did those a month ago. i am nervous to do it by memory.

they are different. they are different on purpose. when we do these, we try to sit down and make sure that our conditions that are relevant to the breach that we are having. commissioner meko: i understand that, and i think that is a good idea for the commission as well to craft conditions particular to the venue with an establishing broad, sweeping conditions that really do not apply to what they deal with. but if you could forward those. >> i am happy to send you the specifics, and also, in general, what they do is bring the ratio of security to, basically, one to 100, or 180, or 150. in specifically 550, we did language around making sure that

every single person that is going into the venue or leaves and comes back in goes through security. commissioner meko: better lighting, our cameras? >> sometimes cameras. commissioner meko: four years ago, it seemed this commission had reached a point where we had normal conditions that we could possibly apply. >> you can preconditions. -- tweak conditions. i am happy to send you the conditions on both of those. >> i have it here, thanks to technology. >> you have it in your blackberry. >> currently, we have one of them right here, which is mist. some of the conditions that we would cease at 1:15 a.m., that

there would always be a manager on premise, that the southern station officer would get a calendar every three weeks of events, that their security staff ratio would be adjusted. it is one to every 40 patrons. there would be security staff on duty during all hours of operation. obviously, all security will be over 21. and all security will wear distinctive clothing. for mist, that is most of the conditions that were set. >> i can explain, if you want.

you can stop us. commissioner meko: you are right. >> we wrangled a round at the meeting on the issue of closure. we are not in the habit of producing hours of operation of businesses. again, this is the entertainment piece, not asking them to close the business. it is asking them to and their entertainment earlier than they were doing. -- to end their entertainment earlier than they were doing. that was relevant to seven incidents that happened in three months. there were a tremendous amount of problems releasing patrons and having fights started inside, in the doorway, or right outside. we felt that an answer to