no doubt, you know, but just to recap, the planning department mission try to push through the housing element without an eir. the neighborhoods felt that the housing elements merited an eir because within it were measures that would no impact the environment of the livability of san francisco. these neighborhoods suit. they won in court. the judge rendered a judgment that eir should be done. the planning department then proceeded to do an eir on what is commonly referred to as draft two of the 2004-2009 housing element document. then, in draft 3, they made the unauthorized, and reviewed, and publicized in assertions of new language and deletions of old language that have already been

described by our attorneys and others. now, certainly, if the first judgment was justified on the basis of the enormous impact that these unreviewed changes could have, and eir reviewing these new -- this new language is relevant and should be required, according to the judgment of the court. some of these impacts include increasing -- of the city. [bell] president chiu: thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you very much, sir. thank you. next speaker? and again, if we could ask the speakers to limit your comments to two minutes. that afternoon, supervisors. i am ken part of the mirror loma

group, a san francisco native. -- the mira loma group. i would like to take issue with some of your statements. while there is much to like, there is much to be cautious about, especially the 1.5. secondary units, where community support exists. i also made reference to 4.5. in courage integrating the neighborhood with a diversity of units. these policies will encourage the following trends, as i observed in my 40 years working with clients here in the city. it will encourage families, especially with children, to leave the city for less dense neighborhoods.

neighborhoods with stable populations rather than a revolving door of renters. it will encourage an increase in investor, non-occupied ownership in our single-family neighborhoods. investors have less of a stake in the community and will be less supportive of the policies outlined in the housing element. as the middle-income families seek housing out of the city, the city will become income polarized between the rich and the poor. simply providing housing by itself will not meet these housing objectives. the question of who owns the housing is not addressed. let us -- [bell] president chiu: thank you.

next speaker? thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we are here actually today to talk about the sufficiency, the accuracy of this eir, and i would ask up-front that you approve the motion of item 14, which would reverse the certification of the 2004 and 2009 housing element in remand them back to the housing for adequate review. the court stayed the 2004 neg dec. actually, it was -- let me see if i can see my updates here. the appeal was filed in november

of 2004, and everything was stayed until there was a finding in may 2009, but yet, in the meantime, there were very major plans past. balboa, eastern neighborhood, etc.. major revisions in both-and balkan and zoning. that was essentially a legal, because that was stayed according to cequa, chapter 31, 31.16. the superior court ordered the city to refrain from enforcing or implemented policies and objectives identified as changing from the 1990:. therefore, the 1999 element was or is a baseline for the evaluation for 2004 and to of

the nine, and we do not have an adequate eir here because on 15 through 32 -- [bell] president chiu: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. mark, a moment of discourse by bumper sticker. this eir is the product of regulatory capture at the underlying housing. this is the developer's dream. we have got ab 32 on the other side, and all the splenda department does is meet the developers need. they should have been adequately addressed in the eir. as mentioned previously, there are multiple jobs sites around

these differences go. there is no evidence on the table of the folks who live here will work here overtimed. there is a statement the significance of the eir that this will have on mitigate the book impacts to muni, because the impacts were not -- will have an unmitigated gall -- unmitigated impacts on muni. we will need to move forward with both of them, not one. if you do not accept this appeal, then you are signing the death warrant to muni. it is the symbol of everything we want to do, and we cannot keep piling more burdens on a system that is losing money and getting slower and slower. to speak to supervisor wiener's

questioned. please reject this eir, accept the appeal, return it to planning, and let's go ahead to figure out to meet housing needs for current finances and, not future imaginary sentences and that also benefit developers. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is matt chambers. i am a san francisco resident and president of another neighborhood association. there are actually several members here today korea i knew to ask you to reject the eir. i actually read it, all of it. it was dry, but there were two things in it that stood out as wrong, and i want to call your attention to those.

the first is in section 433, there were two pages. the talk about directing wealth to certain parts of the city. unfortunately in that section of the document of the eir, they never mentioned a policy 1.10 in the housing element. that is because when they were in the eir, there was no such thing as that. they added it. it talks about increasing development along the infill transit line, and that is defined as a place with a plan for long-term improvements, and in my mind, that is putting the cart before the horse, and that will have a ceqa impact, which you have heard before. secondly, it does not consider the densities in the rh-1 and

rh-2 areas. specifically, page 57 of the eir says overall, it does not promote increased density in the city. they also say that it assumes that most would agree to adopt a plan areas, where capacity has already been identified. then, draft 3 came out, and they had something that was not covered by eir. [bell] president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am carolyn, a lifelong resident. i am a current board member of a council. i am here to speak to you about the inadequacy of the eir. our neighborhood and all the other neighborhoods are going to be very negatively impacted by

all of this, as the eir is based on the second draft of the housing element, not the third. specifically, and elements in the third draft were excluded from the eir. that is the removal of neighborhood support and encouraging the density citywide, as you just heard, with rh-1 and rh-2. for all of our neighborhoods, we will see a very strong impact on the open space and greenspace that we now enjoy. there will be impact on wildlife, birds, plants, and other animals. the eir did not address these padilla, and the eir did not envision the entire city being swept with a broad stroke of this plan. the inclusion is citywide, regional, and there are stakeholders, in addition. its specific the talks about

neighborhood support. that was removed. community was defined as citywide and regional and beyond. and the inclusion of the transit four-store draft also fully impacts all of our neighborhoods in that the transit corridor it covers our neighborhood. so the entire neighborhood is involved. it no blankets the entire city. and finally, the eir -- the policies -- president shoot: -- chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am a past president of the

women's league. the they are was done on draft two, not three, and it is inadequate. there will be see the impact on the following neighborhoods. the neighborhood association. the civic association, the jordon park improvement association, lake shore acres " laurel heights improvement association san francisco, and this includes the presidio heights association of neighbors sunset park there is the website hudgens association. think you. >> hello, my name is barbara.

i have lived here for the past 16 years and have lived in san francisco for the past 24 years. i am here to ask you as a concern zant this has been, is the current eir adequate, complete, and objective proof is not. it does not analyze all of the effects of the housing elements. there will be impacts, such as density of housing and changes in historic in neighborhood characters that we all enjoyed in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you to the board of supervisors for hearing. i am barbara, and i invited in which i reside in one area. i raised children in san francisco for over 40 years now, and no cure for my

grandchildren four days at work in a tone korea we are requesting an appeal and consideration of the housing element plan. this plan is not who we are incidence though, and has been a city group of city and fairly friendly not. mixed with commercial viruses, there are many unit -- the beauty that impose as to what to live here and went to visit one of our beautiful and diversity. i have a screen shot year. walgreens decides to put in something, and you can imagine all the dunces 0 and lombard street being covered by as st. units. the ability of developers to build the eight-story building

the key transit routes with some other designations. which got face of u.s. music and other, it would threaten their families for a quasi-this housing element plan down the exodus and things korea and detract from tourism. please do not let this go on. it is not here we are. thank you. president next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the key for sticking around.

i am not a lawyer. i have la brent bozell doctor. i evidence it was still enough to tyrannize a large selection, it other elections, light district elections. all of a boy to do is ask you when you drive home. take a look at the city and see what would happen if a more expansive this and be totally destroyed the character of the city. please response will. . president chiu: date you.

next speaker. >> my name is barbara. doesn't understand the changes, my beautiful blogged of rh-1 and rh-2 housing would be ruined by changes that privilege -- that allows small backyards or no backyards. it would permit buildings of to eight stories in height. these changes could occur because we are within one- quarter mile of the bus lines. the proposal would limit 0 backyard in rh-1. that is a beautiful problem. they are critical to keeping families in san francisco.

families would go to tejada because they would not have the required of street parking. to packed in 1000 more residents without parking is just insanity. how are they going to give around with no cars or in adequate transit service? the planning department uses the phrase transit oriented development korea in this concept was applicable along market, geaery, and other areas. this concept of transit- oriented development depends on removed -- improved transit. the kind of sensible changes that you can make to the transit system seen nearly impossible

because of the labor union. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, my name is -- i am a native san franciscan, and i am here representing the pacific heights residents' association. we are participating in an appeal which would be in support of the eir and support the review of it, and with all due respect, to say that we participated in the previous appeal which tossed out the earlier measure. this would be appealing with

success. i think you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- i am speaking in favor of the appeal, and i would like to talk specifically about some things that have not been discussed thoroughly, at best. the housing element should be addressing a problem, and it doesn't seem to me that we have a good definition of the problem that we're trying to build for ourselves. we are trying to build housing to meet housing need. the question is, what is that housing need? we earlier heard in the appeal that we are building an abundance of market-rate housing, and we are not supporting the middle-income or low-income housing at anywhere near adequate levels. the reason this is significant

is that this housing is not supported in the city, then we would be doing is encouraging workers in these areas to live outside of the city, where they can get affordable housing. this is a couple of ramifications. number one, they will buy where housing is cheaper. this tends to be places without adequate transportation. they nonetheless need vehicles to drive where they live, shopping, getting kids to school, etc.. these are not walkable communities. what this does is the greenhouse gas emissions in the city, they were exceeding by the impact by the middle-income and lower-

income workers, who, they did not buy new cars, they bought older cars, so not only are they greenhouse gas approved -- [bell] president chiu: 80. >> i am bob, the resident president of the golden gate neighborhood association. 45-41, there is a transition. that cuts through the valley. i would like you to reject the eir, because it is not constituted, but what i want to express is the -- to express this. if i want to remodel the back of my house, i need three

applications, and people have to come over to look at the plans. does the planning department have to do this for the housing element? i tell you, they did not have to do this for the draft three legislation. i think this is anti-democratic. i think it is wrong. basically, to the disarray r.h. -- to the disarray -- to get rid of rh-1 and rh-2/ president chiu: if there are any other people who want to speak, please line up in the aisle. >> that is a hard act to follow. we have been in san francisco for over half a century. we have an organic garden that pretty much feeds us about three months per year, and we have been doing that for about 26

years now. the issues that concern me have not really been touched on, and they are in code numbers, so much as they are philosophical issues, and do not go away, mr. supervisor. please. the planners go to some sort of a school which teaches them about the most modern planning imaginable. they are not taught how to plan for chicago or new orleans. that is number one. number two, i have been active in my community from civil rights onward. over the past few years, i have felt an increasing sun's of -- an increasing sense of dislike, to put it mildly, and i guess

what i have to say before my time runs out is that we saw this in east berlin and in the former soviet union, and we are seeing in the middle east, people saying, "we do not want to be told by big brother or big daddy what is good for us. we want to say what is good for us." and in san francisco, we do not want politicians or planners with their particular view of the world saying, "we know what is best for the rest of the world, what you can do with your time and love and money, living in the city, trying to keep your neighborhoods beautiful." ] [ -- [bell] president chiu: 80. [applause] and members of the audience, a

reminder that we do not allow a show of the motions. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the chair of the neighborhood ladies and housing committee. the eir is insufficient, inadequate, and inaccurate. therefore, it should be returned to the planning department, and it should be redone. i wish and my time left, i could say everything. she said it so well. she was very thorough. but i cannot add too much to that. i can add some things. to carefully review these. some things i want to talk about. the elimination of density limits.

it is not a big deal, but we only have one third single- family housing. those of the type of housing, when they first start, when they have a family, boom. so we should protect that, keep some of our safety officers here in the city. including the fire department. another issue is the water, the water issue. san francisco now has to give up 7.4 million gallons per day, and on top of that, as 60,000, they are going to use up about 7.5 million gallons of water, and that is about 50 million

gallons per water per day, and we use 50 million gallons per day. it is sort of like a 30% increase. that has not been analyzed and reviewed. oftentimes, but the puc just rubber-stamp everything. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> we have not been named an appellate, but we ask you to get a full review of the changes as they are addressed. i want to talk about water supply, an issue that many of you believe is a non issue, as i have been told by many of my colleagues who have talked to you. in our 25-year agreement,