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 believe a successful housing element should promote three policy issues and give us guidance. housing affordability, upon which the future character of san francisco rest, environmental values like bringing jobs close to the

housing and promoting transit, and this difficult idea of density equity, that all neighborhoods have to help out, and not that some neighborhoods are exempt. the housing element is over two years late, largely because planning has had to walk on egg shells or tie itself into pretzels trying to placate folks who have never accepted the legitimacy of the housing element or supported its goals. to the housing element opponents, this plan is expected to deliver less height, less density, and more parking, yet remains completely silent on questions about housing affordability,sb 375, or did seek equity. could this be a better document? you bet it could. has been watered down a lot. but the important thing is this is two years late in a vain attempt to placate opponents who cannot be placated. you have a clear choice in front of you. this is being opposed by folks, and this is difficult to say --

many from the nicest neighborhoods in san francisco, was clearest and most defining civic values seems to say, "we have got ours. let's close the doors and prevent anyone else from coming into our neighborhoods. that is wrong and should not be condoned. it is a weird, like the birthers, for whom no evidence can persuade them. there is no evidence that single-family homes are at risk because of this. this is two years late. it is a state-mandated document. it is a decent document. i urge you to approve it finally. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a resident of the marina district since the 1970's. my understanding is that under the 2009 housing element, rh1

and rh2 zoning will be changed to allow up to eight-story buildings to be erected where i think four is the current height limit. such as in the marina cal hollow districts. i understand the current requirement for yard space is to be eliminated as well and that the requirement for adequate parking space will also be done away with. these changes will destroy the livability of our neighborhoods and will seriously damage the need character of this city, allowing the development in neighborhoods without accompanying parking space is in st.. muni is already overcrowded, and how the heck is going to handle all these additional riders? thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. if there's anybody else would like to speak, please come forward. we're going to close public

comment in a moment. >> [inaudible] good afternoon, supervisors. i am a homeowner in san francisco, and i am an immigrant. i came to the united states and the bay area now 22 years ago. almost 23. and i came to san francisco almost 20 years ago. i have been a renter, and i have lived in a loft in south beach. i am in love with the city. i have not been living here as many other people have been living here many decades. in san francisco, i am only four years, but i am in love with the best part of the city as well as the other parts of the city. i wish i could live in all of them. they are wonderful for their distinctiveness.

san francisco is a beautiful city. with a diversity of the people, diversity of its culture, diversity of its architecture. most of my friends who are immigrants and who have come, like my husband, to silicon valley in the bay area -- they do not want to be living in san francisco. i want to just remind you that the character of different neighborhoods in san francisco, the beauty of san francisco, the san francisco keeps different characters of its neighborhoods -- just to remind you, how many more people do you think would want to come and live in san francisco if it is not beautiful anymore?

the question was where do we put more people. do you think that more people would want to live in such high density neighborhoods? supervisor mar: thank you. could the last couple of speakers please come forward? >> hello, supervisors. as i mentioned last week, the residential design guidelines approved by the planning commission in 1999, i would just like to focus on one procedural point, and that is that all of the community organizations with which i am familiar and which have opposed the current draft of the housing element all are signed off on the second draft. one hates to see expensive staff time wasted. it seems to me that the logical

thing to do, especially in view of what has been done after the fact with the eir, would be simply to go back to the second draft, and that is where i would like you to consider going. thank you. >> i am a former elected member of the order directors of the association of bay area government. i was elected in 1978. 1974, 1976, and 1978. we were a group that was supposed to supply input to hud. we were elected spontaneously. i was one of the once elected. we found themselves in a strange situation. the pressure was to build, build, build. unions like the ones you have seen today, many of them would

gladly repave golden gate park with the pyramids in egypt if they could get the scale, let's be honest. the same situation with men developers and spur. they want to build, build, build. here again with this element 3, again, they want to build, build, build anything anywhere as long as it produces more business. frankly, the city is already pretty well buildup. yeutter not need the extra population. you do not want it. the city is already very densely populated. there's a lot of quick money to be made on this, but it is not in the public interest. thank you very much. >> my name is steve patrick. i am a 22-year resident of st. francis with. the only comment i want to make -- everything has been said -- i

just hope that the process of how this decision is getting made is handled properly. because i find myself in the strange position of paying homeowners choose to sue lawyers being paid by my property taxes. so if you could please just get back to a good dialogue. seems like you were pretty close their with the version two. maybe we could avoid the waist and move forward in a constructive way, so thank you very much for your time. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am one of the gang of members that is here. i happen to live in st. francis wood. i have lived in many areas in san francisco as both a renter and homeowner, and i happen to be the mother of one of two kids, one of who is missing soccer practice right now

because i thought it was important enough to come here today and just make a comment on two points. i have to agree with just about everything that has been said by everyone who is here today talking about the way the third draft has materialized. contrary to the expectations of various leaders from the homeowners' associations around the city who were happy with many hours of work put in to draft two, only to find something it sounds like was a little bit sneaky materialized suddenly in the form of draft 3 in changes to zoning requirements and the 30 magical words that will make everything miserable for a lot of us in some of the neighborhoods that have single-family homes and would like to keep it that way. i learned about this at the last minute. i do not know how all that came about, but it sounds like it would be why is it input could

be obtained from the people who spent so many hours trying to make draft two happen. we would like to see that proceed with proper hearing. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. there is anyone else who would like to speak, we're going to close public comment after this speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this hearing today was not noticed adequately pursuant to board rules, which require the advertisement notice that items be clearly identified, and that was not done. i request that you rescind the action taken on may 10 to certify the housing element, and that can be done by suspending rules and reconsidering at a

full board meeting. this is a critically important matter, and really needs more time for hearing. land use -- rather law was abrogated because during the course of the stay for the decision on the appeal that was filed, there were major legislation actions, which increased the number of zoning districts from 26 to 44, and most of the new zoning districts are residential transit-oriented zoning districts. that was in violation of the state and in violation of our chapter 31.17b. there should have been no action taken. the ceqa analysis itself was inadequate because the zoning

district changes -- the 2004 zoning district changes were used as the base line because those were existing. the zoning districts that existed prior to this change should have been used as a baseline for analysis. also, the legislation indicated consistency with the general plan and priority policy 101, and that was not the case because we had no general plan in effect at that point. supervisor mar: thank you. seeing no other people lined up for public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, are there questions for staff? supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i have a question for planning staff. there were a couple of references made that this

housing element would allow for eight-story buildings in wide swaths of the city. good planning please clarify or respond to those comments related to the eight-story buildings? >> good afternoon, supervisor. thank you very much for the opportunity. we have responded to these misconceptions many times over the last three months since draft 3 came out, and every time there is a new hearing, there is the people that unfortunately keep hearing these misconceptions. i would like to quickly go through a line of the items, which are unfortunate misconceptions about the housing element and what it does not do. this, it does not call for increased density in any district, particularly in rh1 or rh2 districts. in fact, it explicitly offers protection in a sentence that was not included in previous elements by saying that height

and bulk in these districts should be preserved. it also says the secondary units should only be considered within the community planning process. the reason the policy is there is in one of our recent area plants in the eastern neighborhoods, one of the neighborhoods actually requested that we explore the option of secondary units. not a good idea to permit them anywhere in the city. it is a good idea when you are doing a close-up community planning process that looks at the benefits of that one area to explore whether it makes sense or not, and that is all the housing element permits. two, it does not support increased density or other zoning changes along transit lines. it is very clear on that. there is a policy that says when the planning commission is offering its discretionary approval on projects that are within the permitted zoning -- again, with a committed selling, not increased density or high -- it should look at whether they are near transit, and if they are, consider that and support

them. no increase density. all the projects within the existing zoning limits. 3, there are no changes to denigrate ccr language. only change was to clarify what is possible, and that is simply that the planning commission cannot of course codifications made by neighborhoods as they themselves are not adopted. they can be aware of them and supportive of them, and the document calls out that they should do those things. they cannot enforce them. i think those were the major points to address. if there's anything else i can clarify for you, i would be very happy to do so. eight-story buildings. there are no changes to heights. there are no eight-story buildings. there are no changes to open space, parking, or height referenced in this document. again, there is a significant amount of fear in the community. we have tried to meet with the neighborhoods that would meet with us to explain this and verify what the document says peter our directors specifically held two forums to explain to

people face-to-face that this causes that changes in height, no changes to rh1 and rh2 density, the changes to open space, no changes to parking, but unfortunately, we do not have good success of getting that across. supervisor wiener: can you talk briefly about how the housing element does interact with changes in density? them strictly through community planning processes. it is ironic. it was best said by mr. wedding on the previous item, which we were here listening to, where he said parkmerced went through a community planning process which changes were discussed, vetted, etc. -- >> [inaudible] supervisor mar: please do not yell out from the audience. >> we basically mandated that the zoning changes occur through the planning process as we have had such success with prior to this. thank you.

supervisor cohen: could you briefly describe what the community planning process looks like? >> yes. absolutely. this is straight out of the housing element, the policy that exists. it is policy 1.4, and it says "ensure community-based planning processes are used to generate changes in planning controls, which means changes to density, parking, height, all the things people have been talking about. it says clearly that any new community based planning process should be initiated in partnership with the neighborhood, involve a full range of city stakeholders, should be initiated by the board of supervisors with the support of the district supervisor through their adoption of the planning department or other overseeing the agency's work program, and the scope of the process should be approved by the planning commission. i would be happy to give you any other details if it would be helpful. supervisor cohen: could you explain to me how the housing element will support middle- class housing needs? >> absolutely, and that is a

critical need within the city that has been emerging particularly within the past decade. the first thing the housing element does is recognize middle-class and middle-income adds an actual income level. when we get our regional housing its allocation from the state, they give us market make -- the split into four categories -- market rate, moderate income, low income -- i'm sorry. low-income and very low income. we added another category called the middle and come to represent basically the category between moderate income and market rate, which represents the working level of san franciscans. it is not recognized by the state because it matters in high-cost urban areas. it is a problem we share with sacramento, with l.a., with oakland, etc. and obviously many of the cities where costs are very high. first, the housing element recognizes that income level and

assigns a need to it, which we do not have to do by state law, but we do because it is important to us as san franciscans. in terms of affordability, the housing element cannot provide funding. it is a policy document. it cannot add dollars as much as we need to, but it does provide some pretty creative strategies that are new towards reaching this middle income needs. it enforces the idea of acquisition and rehabilitation of our existing housing so we take the housing stock that is there. not about building new housing. and for the mayor's office of housing and our nonprofit partners, make that into housing that can be secured over the long term through community land trusts, 3-d restrictions to make sure it is available for moderate and middle-income residents. it looks at expanding the inflationary option, which is something we piloted in eastern neighborhoods, which allows developers to explore the option of providing more housing than they would under our existing inclusion their programs toward middle income households.

we get more units provided at a slightly lower income level. and it promotes the idea of affordable by design, which is designed housing as efficiently and effectively as you can to keep the cost down, and that is something that is a market-based strategy. we are trying to work with developers so does not require a subsidy, and we build units that are less expensive and makes sense for people at those income levels. supervisor cohen: really quit -- when you noticed your meetings and held meetings about the housing element, your proposal, were they done strictly in english, or was out reach in a multilingual approach? >> it was based on whatever neighborhood we went to. we have translation services available whenever requested and in neighborhoods where we knew they were needed, we brought them. i'm sorry, all mailed notices went out in three languages, as is our practice. supervisor cohen: thank you very much, and i wanted to thank you

for your work and throw in for comment, often many of the committee members talk about diversity and the rich diversity in san francisco and how that is a value most people like to maintain, but when you look at the prisons that were commenting, there was little ethnic and first city brought to the table for this hearing. i would like to bring to your attention that i have been in touch with members of the asian community as well as african american community. i unfortunately did not hear from the latino community, but that actually are in favor of the housing element, so you have my support. thank you. supervisor mar: i just wanted to add that i know supervisor cohen said the asec and supervisor wiener is on the transportation commission and

the seat. in the standings that the housing element is informed by recent demographic changes over the last 10 years, but also creating a more sustainable san francisco and region as well, and i appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this. i think it was 30 or 35 workshops or community meetings, and i know we have been more sensitive since being sued in 2004, to have a very transparent process, but a number of neighborhood groups mentioned that they feel that the last minute changes in the third version work, they feel, substantively changing the process and unfair, but i would like you to respond with why the third version was necessary and again reiterate the major changes that came from the so- called dirty words in the third version. >> absolutely. thank you. as was aptly stated by supervisor cohen, the voices that you heard today to

represent an important voice in san francisco but one component. our job running this process was to listen to all the voices that we heard at the end 35 workshops, the 14 stakeholder meetings, the session we held at it -- the sessions we held at the planning department. all the neighborhood meetings we went out to across the city, and they were far more diverse than what you're hearing today, and i think the changes that we discuss but at the appeal hearing last monday and i will reiterate today, between draft two and draft 3, there was no bait and switch. we did release the draft 3 to everyone on our mailing list publicly with all the changes shown in strike through so everyone could be clear on the exact words being changed two months in advance of any adoption hearing at the planning commission. we also held two director forms, open to anyone who wished to attend to talk about those changes and the draft that was going to be proposed and ultimately was adopted by the planning commission at the end

of march. those changes are pretty minor. i think the one you never the most about is the term -- changing the term "neighborhood- supported" to "community-based." it is intended to insure that all of our community planning processes are inclusive, including people who may not be able to afford that neighborhood at the time and that we do not restrict it to a neighborhood of of those who might be lucky enough to live in the neighborhood as it is. the neighborhood is still an incredibly important partner, and i believe if you study the language of the housing element, it states that. we just want to make sure that it is not exclusive. another change was regarding a line of explanation. as we talk about how the planning commission and staff should support neighborhood ccnr's, we did clarify that the planning commission could not legally of hold those because they were not documents that have been adopted by them. the last issue of change that i think has been a reference to

the policy that talk about supporting projects within existing zoning along transit lines. that is a version of a policy that existed in draft one, was taken out due to some of the voices that you heard today, and misunderstanding in a draft two, and overwhelming response in the public from voices you did not here today, was bought back in. i do just want to remind you that there are a lot of san franciscans beyond what are in this room. we did our best to try to listen to all of them. i'm sorry we cannot make everyone happy, but i think the document we have actually is relatively balanced and will not do much of what you heard that it will do today. supervisor supervisor wiener: thank you and i want to thank all the members of the public who came out today and came out last week and whether we agree or disagree, it's always very helpful and useful to hear people's

perspectives. i'm going to be supporting the housing element. and i do want to explain why. i think someone commented that there wasn't enough discussion at the board when we certified the e.i.r. last week and probably because it was a very long meeting, but i think it is important whether you agree or disagree with me or any of my colleagues to know where we're coming from. neighborhood character is incredibly important in san francisco and important in the neighborhoods of my district but everywhere throughout the city and i truly believe all of the members of this board deeply value neighborhood character. i know that some people have stated that this housing element is somehow going to eliminate this neighborhood character and make san francisco not san francisco anymore. i don't think that is the case. this is not a rezoning. we have