but this is a different time frame than was planned. this is required to meet a projection of 2035. >> the senate bill has nothing to do with the incentives that are laid out, does it? >> there is discussion happening about the relationship between those two things but this really is a separate issue. >> what we understand is that if we adopt this element that gets us up to the methodology, that might go through the aggregate total later on of what the sustainable community is and that gives us the dollars that escorts the mark higher goal and those areas that have been assigned but not for 2014 but

for 2035. what i was hearing and this is a confusion and this numbers are sorted out. now. i want to make sure that we are clear about the category of numbers we are talking about. >> i appreciate this huge amount of work on what you ever dawned to comply with state law and also reach out to different sides of the spectrum. i am still concerned by many of the neighborhood groups. you have said that it is only 30 words that were changed from the first draft to the second draft and this is not substantive in the major changes that were made. >> you are correct.

we fully address the changes in the second draft to the third draft in the comments and responses documents. as was mentioned, a policy 1.10 is really not a change in policy and it does not affect the environmental analysis. other concerns raised here that were addressed which are about planning and purses to may be supportive planning. we address those in the comments and responses as well as the change from density to height and bulk. >> i know some of the comments and the public, some said please to not let the manhattan-like nature of the development in your neighborhood go forward. this will lead to different

types of environmental impacts and urging us with a balanced solution. my question is really the impact on the western neighborhoods. this comes from think neighborhood organizations centers that say that this will lead to rampant -- rampant identification. we are not just approving a blanket approval but there are those to keep in check the development that they feel is out of character. can you speak to that? >> you are absolutely correct. i was going to say in my comments later that the housing element does not change any development in any peace of planning. the point that we have repeatedly stated is that the housing element is a policy document, it is not planning code.

this does not change the zoning. this action have stronger language than previous drafts. >> with regard to the alternatives that were analyzed, can you speak a little bit to those alternatives and why you believe that those in and of themselves are adequate. >> the eir alternative analysis address several alternatives to the housing element. to begin with, this addresses the 2004 and 2009 alamance at an equal level of detail which is an approach to the eir's that

undersea "are adequate and -- in the eir's and the sea quapaws that are adequate. -- ceqa's that are adequate. 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.

>> welcome to "culture wire." on this episode, we explore what it means to the aged, in today's society -- what it means to be chicana in today's society.

chica chic features an array of artwork by five leading chicana artists that addresses a range of issues such as integration, sustainability, and integration. using a distinct visual approach, each of the artist's response to the shifting needs of their communities in ways that offer unique perspectives and multiple points of entry. >> the exhibition is to bring together the voices of a new generation chicana artists, all of whom reference the works of the civil-rights movement in their works, but they are also responding to a new cultural concerns and new cultural circumstances. >> the works in the show include a large canvas depicting a woman washing the beach with her hair at the u.s./mexican border. the painting encourages the viewer to engage with the current debates over immigration

and the politics of women and labor. influenced by the campaigns of the chicano civil rights movement, this oakland artist is a print maker whose work has helped and sustainability with the immigrant community as well as other current sociopolitical issues. this print-based work draws on appropriated agricultural worker manuals and high fashion labels to satirically address class issues, cultural identities, and consumerism. >> angelica -- her father was an agricultural worker, so she has drawn a lot from the materials the agricultural department sends to agricultural workers, referencing the depiction of farm workers and some of the information about pesticide application. >> mitzi combines a variety of

media, including embroidery, to create artifacts of mexican, chicano, pop culture. she greets immensely detailed drawings of celebrities on the same platform of her friends and families. her work combines elements of chicano portraiture and low writer art, rendered in upon new art style, or intricate drawings on handkerchiefs, also -- often associated with prison art. her portrait of three girls is among several of original posters by the exhibition artists, which are on view at various bart stations as part of a public campaign funded by the national endowment of the arts. from the outset, the curator felt it was important for the exhibition to have a public art components of the work could reach the widest possible audience. more than just a promotion, the posters connect the work of these powerful artists with new audiences, including