>> i am a homeowner in st. francis would then have been for the last 18 years. the st. francis homes association has worked with the city for several years to try to protect the interest here at one point, the second draft of the housing element of just our concerns, including reference to our ccnr's and design that runs, preserving neighborhood character and given support. at the last minute after the eir had been done, changes were made that undercut our ctnr's, making it clear that we would have to protect our guidelines. other changes may affect all neighborhoods in the city, removed neighborhood support in favor of community-bit support, defining the community as city- wide, regional, and beyond, including developers and

stakeholders in our neighborhoods. there is now a notion of into the equity that has emerged. this third version sets the stage for removal of rhi and rh2 zoning. third version of the richest the concept of transit-based development that references muni's cep, which essentially renders the entire city as a development area. we have been very reasonable in our request, patient with the process, and worked in good faith with the city, attending numerous outreach meetings only to have the rug pulled out from under arrest at the last minute. this is san francisco, and our neighborhoods are important. the second version achieved adequately what they needed without risking ruining the historic nations -- the historic areas of our city. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i am president of the park improvement club. i think this is all about process. the third draft of the housing element was certified and approved by the planning commission. it was not reviewed by the environmental impact report. only draft two was assessed by the eir. last-minute changes were introduced between draft two and three that were not removed and vetted. a lawsuit was filed, and even after that, they continue to go around the process. this is a good example of why there is such a lack of public trust. you could change this by doing the right thing and sending this back to the planning department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i m device president of the

balboa homeowners association, and a delegate to the west of twin peaks central council. i would like to second the comments made by the lady from st. francis with, the lady -- the neighborhood just sitting north of balboa terrace. balboa terrace is a single- family residential neighborhood detached homes primarily built in the 1920's. it also has significant green's base. our ccnr's did not allow other than single-family housing, but it is unclear whether the housing element would override the ccnr's. balboa terrace is adjacent to several busy traffic corridors. we oppose the housing element as it is presently constituted because it would allow higher density housing in balboa terrace due to the proximity to the low-traffic corridors. higher density housing in our single-family residential

neighborhood would destroy the neighborhood quality of life and have a severe adverse impact on pedestrian safety due to increased traffic congestion. once again, we second what st. frances wood has said, and we oppose the housing element as it is currently drafted and ask it to be sent back. thank you. >> parkmerced action coalition. we do not support the housing element to be adopted. do you want a city of 2 million people? this is further identification of our beautiful city -- further densification of our beautiful city. we really need an underground tunnel before any densification is considered. if parkmerced became a limited

scope, we could become the affordable housing receptacle for 3000 people. this proposal is not right for the city in any way, shape, or form. thank you. >> i wanted to just speak about -- i support the comments on the whole issue of the housing element, and hopefully, you will send this back. the reason i submitted, as was in regards to rental units, and i think that is the sincerest issue not addressed by a lot of neighborhood organizations. you kind of get what you ask for, and by allowing parkmerced to be proposed as a teardown, why should you not be looking at other districts and other neighborhoods? if we are talking about equity density, there you go. so where and how do we build, and where do we find this and

the site? that is key to the provision. building the infrastructure is key to the provision of doing anything. looking at section 8.1, it was gutted in essence by the housing element changes and everything else. you are not providing the option of renting compared to homeownership, and with some of people in default, no wonder we have people moving out of the city. if you want to create housing for families, you have to create housing that does not increase a person's monthly rent above 30% of their income. how else can they save for their children's education or for a rainy day to buy into a home? without stepping stones to homeownership, without the ability to say it slowly but surely, by renting, i did that myself here i was able to say appeared after 15 years, and managed to buy a place in the excelsior. i think that is a key issue. you have to have the steppingstone, those steps toward home ownership in all districts of san francisco.

you cannot just say, "not in my perfectly designed neighborhood ." you can provide new housing. you can provide new housing in all different districts. i have spoken at many meetings, and we talked about this numerous times. but to state that they are in support of parkmerced plaza development and not in support of building along the empty areas along their neighborhoods -- [bell rings] supervisor mar: [reading names] >> good afternoon, supervisors.

draft 3 of this housing element, which is before you, spells of the city's character for money in the form of grants were going the extra mile in establishing a policy to densify a city that is already denser than any other major u.s. city other than new york. you ought to exercise your power to protect your city and its residents from planned degradation by refusing to accept this housing element and sending it back to the planning department to be redone. this element has been doctored by spur with the connivance of the planning committee. without environmental review or public street to cater to ideologues, densifying interests to sell the city sold for quick cash. i call on you to reject this

temptation and insist that this draft 3 of the housing element be dropped and draft two, the only thevetted by the eir -- the only version vetted by the eir, been adopted. anything would be possible, and it could be totally inconsistent with what was agreed to. only 30 words have been changed. think of what would happen if 30 or even three words were changed in the u.s. constitution. you could end up with dictatorship instead of democracy. 30 words have power. it is very important that they be reviewed and approved by a reasonable and open process. send this back to the planning

department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am not in support of the housing element has was approved by the planning commission. the last minute changes create a different housing element than was explained to the public, and the public was allowed to comment. do i have everyone's attention? on the overhead here, i have a typical street scene. this is a single family home on the left side.

in the middle of the photograph is a vacant lot. under the third revision of the housing element is a developer, and i will show you what can be done there. we do not need any height additions. it can be done in the current height limit. but as the third revision allows, i use the parking kerch area for units -- the parking garage area. and the backyard to allow me a 3000-square-foot unit, all allowable in the zone. those little things you see, the little white things -- they are not pot holes. they are automobiles. they should be parked in the projects. there is three of them here. number one, two, and three.

all that parking is on the streets. it is going to flood what is already very crowded public streets. so i ask you to think about what is being proposed by planning. they do not think it is going to be a problem. supervisor mar: thank you. please come forward. please speak into the microphone. >> in the 1940's and 1950's, our breathtakingly beautiful san francisco bay was being built in at a rapid pace by all the communities along its shores. three housewives, alarmed at the destruction they saw from their windows, got together, and against all odds, and with the help of courageous, like-minded

people, convinced governor brown to design legislation which would forever protect the bay. in the early 1960's, plans were developed to build a freeway along san francisco's north waterfront. thankfully, citizens have learned that they could be heard. they would not allow the travesty to happen, and they won. today, san francisco is facing another plan, in fact by politicians looking for funding, powerful business interests. what is at stake here and now is the character and ability of our neighborhoods, especially those zoned rh1 and rh2. if the city's plans as written are left before, every building in the city would be allowed to have an eight-story building in a covering the entire lot. homes where children can play safely will be replaced by rental apartments with no gardens. more families will leave the city. each apartment with no mandated

garage will add eight or more cars to our already crowded streets. traffic due to an adequate transit will destroy the livability in the city. as a 51-year resident, i am asking for your courageous help and support in these difficult economic times. the diversity and quality of life in the neighborhood need your protection now and for the future. when the votes which have won the honor to compete for the world cup are sailing in the bay and our citizens and sisters from around the world are enjoying our view, shoreline parks, and our unique neighborhoods, -- supervisor mar: thank you. >> hello.

i would like to talk to you about a couple of concepts. that concept is that the older i get, the more i realize that you just do not get back kind. i am concerned that once we have lost the quality of life that we enjoy in san francisco today, a city of distinctive neighborhoods, neighborhoods with low density, neighborhoods with light and back yards, we are just not going to get it back. fortunately, in this area, there have been some farsighted people who preserved yosemite. imagine that being built up. i am grateful that we have a ggnra. i know there is an argument about density, but i do feel that in a previous revision of the housing element, that the need for revenue and density was provided, so i am here to ask

you to use the power that you have to look at the big picture and preserve our city. do not sacrifice our quality of life for some of these short- sighted economic arguments. thank you. >> good afternoon. i strongly oppose the third revision of this draft for housing element. i have been a resident of san francisco with my family for 33 years. we moved here shortly after we got married, and we have raised our children here. we have been renters. we have been dollars. we have lived in the western addition, i and how hollow, in the richmond. we have been orders and ranchers -- we had an owners and renters at the same time. i would like to speak to the diversity of the city and what

it means to me. my husband is a teacher. he has been a teacher in san francisco for 40 years. our children are here. they are graduate students. i myself have been an attorney doing civil rights cases, representing poor people, unemployed people, people discriminated on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation. it seems to me what this element does, this whole thing is totally misguided. i was shocked when i saw a map of the city with what this would do thisrh1/rh2. the point of planning is to plan, not make the city dance all over. look at what this does. you have, for example, in richmond district, -- the way muni is set up, it goes downtown -- it is a downtown- feeding system. if you do a design based on where muni goes, you had

abrogated planning. it is a downtown to neighborhood system. muni in my neighborhood now has discontinued lines and remove lines and only brought them back to our neighborhood because other people did not want the lines running through there. they did that with the 41 line, and then they rerouted the 43 so it does not even go through our neighborhood. it is a cross town line. i asked what was going on there, and they tell me they have not implemented that it. i could talk forever about that bad news. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. to start off with, supervisor wiener last week asked questions

about growth, and i forget the exact questions, but anyway, in regards to growth, -- supervisor wiener: the question was where are we going to put all the people. >> in response to growth, smart growth has been the driving force in the past five to 10 years, and now, more recently, the new driving force is decrease in greenhouse gases. both of these concepts sound really great, but do they work? i do not think they do. if you see what has happened in the city over the past several decades or even the past decade, we have lost a lot. san francisco has been a great city because of its diversity and tolerance, and the housing element has in effect decreased the diversity.

the middle class cannot afford to live here. your colleague, supervisor daly, has left. what did he leave? the cost of housing, the type of housing -- you know, he did not want to spend -- i'm sure he did not want to spend $600,000 for a condo when he could move out and get three or four bedrooms. there is something wrong with the housing element when it does not provide the answers. we know the issues. the data analysis clearly points out that there is going to be a large increase in jobs. what type of jobs are going to be -- -- produce? for the most part, low income. what type of housing is going to be produced? for the most part, market rate housing. that does not jibe. there is something wrong of the housing element indicates one problem and the solution --

please accept draft two. draft 3 is not acceptable. >> president of westwood highlands association. i am for a generation of san francisco, born and raised here, work downtown. i have been involved with neighborhood politics most of my adult life, but i have never seen anything quite as bad as the arrogance and blanket dismissal that your board displayed to all the neighborhood leaders that testified at the eir appeal last tuesday. without discussion or explanation, you voted to approve it in favor of only one individual who testified in its favor, it paid housing activist. this housing element is wrong. it is a huge sellout, and i guarantee you that the benefits the city was promised from spur, the housing action coalition, whatever that is, developers or whoever, is not enough to make it worthwhile. you are being used.

my daughters live and work in the city and what to remain here to raise their families, but there is little hope for them now, and it will be worse with this plan that only promotes congested living and no parking is approved. four other young people with restrictions on condo conversions, closed school, privatize parts, as i said, i represent west would highlands homeowners. for years, we have been using our dues money, and now again, not to beautify and maintain our neighborhood, but to hire lawyers and protect our property and way of life from the very city that is supposed to protect us. the value of our property is being taken slowly but surely by the compromises to rh1 and rh2 disowning in this housing element, and it is being done without notification or consent, and i'm sure without the knowledge and consent of people from your own districts. please do not approve this housing element. san francisco will lose too

much. it is not worth it. to remain diverse and vibrant, san francisco needs more stakeholders. it said, please instruct the planning department to come up with a plan that will concentrate -- [bell rings] that is what we're missing. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm here to speak against the third revision of the 2009 housing element. i want to let you know that i hate change for density housing to density zoning. neighborhoods throughout the city hate this new density zoning, and they hate the way the planning department did it also, as well. i have seldom seen the neighborhoods so unified. we are at a point where another gentleman was talking about only changing 30 words.

i think we are at a point where we are also going to be linking general obligation bonds, parcel taxes, and we will be changing maybe just one word -- maybe from yes to no. i wanted you guys to understand how strongly the neighborhoods feel about this and how this is going to have a much bigger impact than simply we got the planning element out. it is going to impact your revenue, your ability to generate revenue. it will not be hard under 2/3 vote to stop something now, so thank you very much. again, i am against the third revision of the 2009 housing element and would like to see you go back to what the neighborhoods agreed upon originally. thank you.

>> good evening. i will not say too much because other people said it much more better than me. supervisor mar: could you please pull the microphone closer to your mouth? thank you. >> and without the accent that i have, but i will tell you how i feel. i love where i live. i had been at that location for 36 years. i worked very hard. and when i say "very hard," i mean very hard. when i moved there, at nighttime, many times the fog will come in.

about 2:30 and on, there was no sound on the street where i live. no matter what the people did, if you go door to door, you will find out that nobody wants to touch the home that i live -- the home that i love so much. i did not come here prepared because i did not know anything about it. all i learned about it -- i went -- they are over there. i do not know, but if you ask them to speak, but i love the place. i love also my neighbors.

as far as changing, upstairs, he will judge you -- [bell rings] supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon. the housing element policy, if adopted, vigorously promotes population growth in the city. we need a lot more water. you are the decision makers. i want you to be careful. i suggest and i urge you to hold a sidebar hearing on the issues of available water supply and what is projected in the future. to give you an example, you know that the puc has a projected

shortfall now. demand is down now, but it is down because mainly systemwide, because of the wholesale customers. last year in the city, we used 77.7 million gallons a day. we have an available supply of 81 million gallons a day from our watersheds, plus about 1.5 million for pumping groundwater. that is our available supply, and we have contractual obligation to keep under that 81 million gallons a day. the allocation itself up 31,193 units by 2014 is going to require 3.7 million gallons a day more. the annualized units that can be built under existing zoning will require 7.3 million gallons a day more, and eat you go all the way of to the initial vision scenario of 90,114 new units,

you need 10.8 million gallons a day more. we cannot reach that. there have been updated assumptions in the computer model that the puc is using to project the man. in five years, demand is going up to 80.7, and is staying that way for about 20 years. do you agree with the five assumptions that have been changed in the computer model? can you assure us that certainty you know where we will obtain the additional water to accommodate the population growth that is envisioned? i would encourage you to hold the hearing on this issue. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. again, i want to commend the planning department for its heroic work on the housing element. we have said before that we be