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." today we're headed to smpling f. camera works, a premiere venue for artists working in photographer, video, and digital media. the latest exhibition lists clearness as a set of political alliances and possibilities that it is behind the sphere of dominant gay and lesbian culture. the curator fills us in on the process of creating this thoughtful exhibition. and what she would like you to

take away from it. >> i co-cureated with danny, a chicago-based writer and curator. the conceptual framework is what it means to be clear and radical for our generation. clearness as a set of political alliances and possibilities, not necessarily related to institutions of gender and swam formativity. danny and i wanted the show to feel funky and to have a really tangible quality to it. so part of that was incorporated handmade objects and installations and beautifully printed photographs and videos. there is also a lot of opportunities to participate and to take postcards or to get the photo taken or sit within a

tent made out of afghan blankets to watch videos. the exhibition is organized in three distinct galleries. in gallery one, which is the gallery designated to clear activism, there is an installation by the oakland-based collaboration and it's called "unleashed power." it's all focused on one protest that happened in chicago in 1991 with the activist organization act up, which was protesting the inadequate health care for people living in aids, and specifically it focuses on an act of police violence that occurred at that protest. the thing that is really interesting for me about that piece is that it brings us back 20 years to what clear activism looked like at the height of the aids crisis.

gallery two features work that is related to intentionally communities that exist both within cities, also in rural spaces, and transient communities as well. the return features a no madic clear tribe, the people who join this tribe are often in various states of transition themselves, whether it's leaving behind previous gender assignments or corporate jobs or a life within cities. a lot of the work featured in the exhibition and a lot of the installations are handmade objects. there is a lot of do-it-yourself aesthetic and that handmade do-it-yourself feeling is something that mimics the idea and the reality of the alternative world making that we're trying to represent here as far as the self-sufficient community goes.

gallery three features work that relates to the ideas of self-determinenism, alternative world making and utopia. visits can still participate in this -- visitors can still participate in this project. during the opening, we invite visitors to come in and try on these costumes, pose in front of the backdrop. he was really inspired by comic books that he read as growing up and thinks of this space as a post-apocalyptic monster portrait gallery where people can remain genderless once they put on the costumes. we think it's important that this be happening in san francisco, which is considered an ekpe center