>> welcome everyone back to san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, january 23, 2014. i'd like to remind members of the public and audience to please silence all electronic devices. that may sound off during the proceedings and when speaking before the commission if you

care to state your name for the record >> commissioners we left off under your regular calendar case 1565 e for the housing element public hearing outlines on the revised environmental impact report. written comments will be accepted until february 3rd, 2014. like to advise members of the public to limit your comments to only the revised sections of the draft environmental report. that is what the before you today or before the commission. also the commission chair as determined that each member of the public will be afforded 2 anybody's of pub any public comment? >> good afternoon. i'm steven smith from the planning

department. this is for case 2007.175 e for 2004 and 2004 housing element it is for the 2004 and 2009 elements the element itself is a policy document consisting of goals and policies to guide the city's for private and a public developers to meet even though housing demand and it's part of the housing plan 10 east which is administered by the california housing department. in 2004 and 2009 they were prepared consistent with state law. this includes the city's ability to meet the housing allocation which has the housing fair share and it is determined by the bay area government's in connection

with the h cd. on march 4, 201133 they had the environmental report. on june 21st the board of supervisors selected and be adapted the 2004 general department plan, however, because of the eir the planning department has particularly revised the alternatives and this is for public review. the primary revisions to the chapter includes the following. number one a new subsection which provides generally types of new hours. number two revisions to the environmental analyze of each

all of the evidence this provides clarification for sub extension for the impact conclusions. no changes have been made. neuronumber 3 the changes for the in fact, and four provides anna analysis as compared to the 2004 and 2009 houlgz elements. they make minor adjusts and lastly the department made changes in the executive summary. consistent with the guiles comments should be only focused on the chapter 7 alternatives and the con men or women changes in the executive summary. it should be focused on the revised changes in the eir.

staff a not here and the comments will be transcribed that will address all the oral and written comments to the written part of the example i r. the hearing low follow the certification. commenters are asked to speak slowly and clearly for an accurate trip and speakers should be giving their addresses. we'll take any comments from the planning folks. the public comment period began on december last year and at the scene of the accident to monday january 2014 i suggest the

public hearing be opened >> i have a number of speaker cards. if you could line up on the screen side of the room (calling names) first speaker >> first speaker please. >> i'm leonard gregory scott i reside at the 2434 jackson street in san francisco. we would like to ask for a continuance we dpnd he we could comment on corporate section to please give us more time to review those hundreds of pages.

the middle class in the city should have some areas in the neighborhood. and it's not been given sufficient attention if the city and we have a crisis not having houses for the middle-class. they will be sent out of the city a again, we think the housing element as it stand it totally inadequate. >> my name is a dave i'm address is 120 grant avenue in san francisco. i'm president of west highlands association. i grew up here and went to school here and work here and now my grand kids are here.

as you know, in the 1994 our neighborhood coalition brought this to court. then planning received the 2009 planning element this time with an eir didn't address transportation. right now the busses on gary and stockton are already packed. i've rind public straight downtown and finally, just recently started driving and that particular eir didn't offer the alternatives now the public didn't know about this our neighborhoods have had three weeks since christmas to look at it. glancing at it the

transportation system still stuck out but one huge alternative is housing that's a middle-class with children what almost for the record. that starter housing with a little backyard and a endanger. this housing project didn't have this there's no family housing for sale. without families this city dies or morris into a winn and diane for adults like venice italy >> thank you, sir your time is up. >> my name is a michael i'm with the park merry kidney coalition. i'm concerned this houshz

element didn't taking into consideration the need for transit before development. i've been very frustrated by what is coming from park merced i understand the plans call for an increase in something like 84 units and the cumulative impact of the environmental impacts is not being considered. my children have taken public transportation and continuing been frustrated by the muni to get into bart from where you live you have to take a shuttle and that lines wines around the san francisco buildings and 85 new cars will be added to park merced.

tdr there isn't any southern for transit before development. i know the need for affordable housing but in getting rid of the affordable housing in san francisco sate and putting rent control at peril even denying has said you can't guarantee that rent control will be here so your driving first names out of the city. there's all kinds of lip service by the city to create affordable housing but in the end with developer money and all the power that developers have the whole process of planning here seems with the city attorney and the planning department and the commission all seems to be a homicide just dud i didn't peanut gallery. i want you to seriously consider the plans for increasing the

dense a indication in the face of inadequate transportation and the potential of pollution coming up. there are many places in san francisco where you can too righteous deny indication and park merced is not one of the places >> let me call a couple more names (calling names). >> my name is charles i live on washington street i'm a director of the housing association for neighborhoods. i'm a family man a disappearing brood in this city. i live at home with my wife and children. more pertinent to today's event i think with did you respect to

my fellow supporters here it was my neighborhood and me personally who sphere heated the lawsuit that brings us here today. i provided the ideas and have supported this so far. contrary to the agenda preliminary action no one required i'm going to ask you to put on you're thinking caps and think about opening up the record implicit and bet the people tell you what they want. i served as district two representative that helped the staff develop what we presented to you as a group on february 10, 2010, which was the 2009 housing element. we had our last meeting on that

we we spent hours i spent 8 months and many hours working on that. yet the product disappeared from the record and was changed before the vote you take on june 10th. we never had an opportunity to come back and tell you about your proposed changes. you should open the record and let us tell you to take care of that. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners i'm kathy representing san franciscans for liveable neighborhood. they must correct the revision of the corrected notice for 45 days or an alternative grant the notice erroneously states that the agency need only to respond

to comments to the part of the e i railroad it refers to numerous other discussions of the impact analysis and on january 15th the interpretation clarified that the comments maybe made as to the revisions and those reference sections as they proton - pertain to the alternatives. today, the secretary and the staff repeated the incorrect reductions the writ issued by the court said you must consider all comments as to revisions to the eir and consider all comments to the revisions. so your notice it inadequate and you