>> supervisor wiener's ideas to board even it. >> to one in case another use wants to open up it will allow that without another ordinance and the definitions. >> what did you say about poetry recitals. >> the other entertainment is other uses and i think anytime that you do serve amplified sounds you need a place of entertainment permit. >> poetry was with amplified sound. >> yes. >> it would not be permitted with under our modification the idea was to take anti things that require places of entertainment predicament to narrow the types of entertainment. >> so a poetry recital i use

the microphones you'll fall into the general requirements the alcoholic beverages and hoping there's other ways to serve beer or wine. >> you wouldn't be able to have a poetry recital use a place that only does poetry retilt i silt with the restaurant and serve acholic beverages. >> that's ridiculous how those controls are. >> mr. chairman, i - and we've loud the alcoholic has b there been my crime incidents what's the trend i know that urban puts has been open for a while but

what about other businesses we've allowed alcohol. >> i'm not having the information with me. >> there's a good neighbor policys that are connected with the code and that would be helpful for me to know if the businesses have been boyd by the good neighbor policies and the last thing i support is legislation and i think the planning commission suggestions as well. i think that upper put and other businesses are benefits to neighborhoods but as they work with the neighbors to make sure that the families and especially children have access during the daytime hours but also their hopefully listening to the miniature golf inside is goes to

12 or a.m. and it protects the folks from allowing alcohol where the urban put is. it would be good to get the information about my crime reports if the expansion from the theatre and the mission bowl that would be helpful to me >> sure. >> okay. can i - mr. chair can i make a motion >> i want to move with we amend item 4 to adopt the first recommendation. >> i'll second. >> okay. >> supervisor and john gibner, deputy city attorney just before you act on this motion this amendment would not require

going back to planning but require continuance in the committee before what we go forward. >> okay. so there's another motion and can we take that without objection. >> can i have a motion okay. we have to resend it now we're going to open up for public comment any public comment on that item on item 4. seeing none, public comment is closed. and so there is a motion i'll make a motion as indicated before and we'll take that without objection. on the amendment can i get a motion to continue item 4 by one week >> so moved. >> thank you madam clerk call item 5.

>> the ordinance rerep ordinance and adapting a housing element. >> okay. so on item 5 which is come from the planning department is here. >> hello so good afternoon supervisor wiener and supervisor mar and supervisor cowen i'm from the plaintiff i'm here to present the 2009 adapt by planning commission and recommended to you more approval. the how are you element is one of 7 elements from the general plan it's a long term comprehensive plan for the city and county of san francisco >> the housing law by the housing community development requires that local governments meet the low and low income

residents for the housing elements. the 2009 element was approved to meet the states basic requirements and also with the input of community members that includes specific issues like neighborhood character and infrastructure to support the growth. the housing element provides the background for the housing decisions and the public for the meeting the cities goals. the housing element provides the fraction for future decisions and oils the programs for the objectives and the policies. adaptation of the housing element didn't modify the land use regulation for the bulk limits nor suggests specific controls for specific

neighborhoods it didn't add changes to the zoning map my such changes requires the community outreach as well as hearings by the planning commission and the board of supervisors. in march of 2011 the plaintiff presented the element to the planning commission and it was adapted by the board of supervisors. we're here to present the same housing element by a lawsuit to challenge the 2004 and 2009 element eir and the adaptation of the 2009 element. the court ordered the city to set aside it and reconsider the housing elements. in response to this it was done by analyze and circulated to the community. the revised eir was certified on

april 2014 and based on that the planning commission recommended the adaptation of the 2009 elements. the planning commission continues to remedy the adaptation of the element as the housing element of the general plan the 2009 was developed in coordination with the mayor's office. the commission found that the 2009 element balances the courts values including the prioritization of the housing and the recognition of the housing character and the jobs transportations infrastructure and the city's roll as a sustainable model for rolls. its consistent with the planning code sections and was developed in coordination with the general policies. analysis of the policies is determined in the hoosiers

element. the commission recommends the housing element adaptation according to the lay and it helps our decade for the community development continue our eligibility for state and community and infrastructure fund and this is particularly important because of the mayor's office directive for the affordable housing. and will allow the city to begin the process for the development of the 2014 element that is due to the state no matter january 15th and it is recommended to be adapted. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you very much colleagues, any questions or comments regarding item 5. okay in that case we'll open item 5 for. and i have two cards.

(calling names) >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm kathy. i'm an attorney representing san franciscans for liveable neighborhoods the appellant in this case. we're here because the superior court of san francisco found that the city violated the requirement of the california virtual quality act about when it approved the final impact report for the 2004 and 2009 plan because the analysis of alternatives in the eir was conclusionary and not supported by fax and the finding rejecting the finding were conclusionary the court ordered the approval of the housing element set aside for the reasons stated in san

franciscans reliveable comments submitted to the decision and the planning commission on our appeal to the board of supervisors for the eir certification we respectfully oppose the housing element because the deficiencies have not be occurred and their unsupported by fax as are the proposed finding. as an example faeflt a was defined as subject to all the area plans where 95 percent of the growth is expected by i eir says the housing will be dispursued because of the resident policy by the way, the majority of policy will be directed to the housing makes no sense so because of the time

limps we don't have 07, 8, 9 to present it we oppose the project respectfully and go forward with our appeal to the certification of the board. i assume that concludes the time >> we'll have that sequa appeal at the board of supervisors. thank you >> thank you. >> sir. >> can i have the overhead. age after beauty. i represent san francisco tomorrow we support the appeal of the san franciscans for the neighbors. the fact we're number one in the nation and the cost of housing construction is due to the lack of an efficient active problematic and enforceable housing element. those are indicated by the fact

that the city is allowed discretion for the affordability but not the interpretation of the states mandate for what is required in the housing elements. it's inconsistent with what is required in terms of the internal alignment with the general plan and with proposition m that requires a neighborhood be affordable and preserve neighborhood character it doesn't acknowledge the fact it has 50 thousand unit high-end in the pipeline and effectively on the scariest cities resources like you land affordability and costs and service programs it denies that the prop m has

standing over the people over the board of supervisors. it's therefore i sustain that it is an abuse even if power an abuse of power to the continuation because it makes the board come polite as well as the officers of the court thank you for your attention send it back >> bay here's the law your avoiding. >> thank you, ms. hill son. >> good afternoon, supervisors of the land use committee the eir doesn't adequately consider the feasible faechlts one to maintain the density limits to protect the neighborhood character it was dish and not krethd e corrected in the

vesting process it was not evaluated with the advisory committee and not subject to the eir draft period the june 2010 draft is a feasible alternative that will help with the rh1 and rh2 neighborhoods the 2009 housing elements will produce more housing elements and over the market rate housing it's contrary to the allocation the 2009 housing element has a significant impact on transit. transit is over capacity and streets are congested in the central and eastern neighborhood. this is nonresponsive to comments thank you for your time >> thank you is there any further public comment on item 5?

seeing none, public comment is closed. thank everyone that came out today and colleagues, we have a pending appeal at the board of supervisors so we'll need to forward this without re78gs because we can't act on it until the sequa appeal has been resolved. supervisor mar >> yeah. i wanted to ask is it ms. missouri hand i know we've this has been before land use before every what is is every four or five years i have a question about neighborhood concerns. i know in the housing element an package 37 issue 6 there's a stated goal to maintain the unique character of the san francisco neighborhood the mayors has a huge goal to meet the inner city housing could you

walk us though how united states community has a say in projects that move forward according to our housing units especially protecting and middle-income and how we maintain the character >> so i think i said in my opening remarks this is the cities vision and anytime we do my in depth work that is for a planning effort so we what we address neighborhood character or work in areas we don't have the planning we'll work with the board of supervisors before any legislation occurs. >> it's my understanding this is not a blanket approval but there's a process for individual environmental reviews and you're saying a general vision and goals of our housing needs in the city?

>> yes. that's correct. >> thank you. thank you supervisor mar. any other questions or comments colleagues. okay could i get a motion to forward item 5 to the full board without recommendation >> we will we'll take that without objection.. madam clerk, any other business before this commission? >> there's no further business.