that we previously submitted and of course there is not time orctiontion you know, go through all the examples, but i just want to read the end of the writ which says, you are further command today comply with the requirements of c-e-q-a concerning the housing elements described herein by june 30, 2014 and pursuant to the court's retained jurisdiction over your proceedings by way of the return to the writ, this preemptory writ will remain in effect until this court determines based on your return to the writ that you have fully complied with c-e-q-a as to the matters set forth herein. so, this body cannot determine that you have complied. the court must determine it before you can reapprove the project. i want to thank you very much. >> thank you very much. let me ask if there are members of the public that wish to speak in support of the appellant. please step up. good afternoon, board of supervisors. rose hillson, member jordan

park [speaker not understood], member coalition san francisco neighborhoods. i sent you an e-mail earlier at 1:05 p.m. today and it includes a letter, i have 12 copies here for distribution if you'd like in case the e-mail is kind of not transmitted well. i would like to say the following thing. earlier in this meeting you did pass and adopt a resolution for the 2009 housing element. and what i wanted to say is it's the first reading only. however, i wanted to add a statement that could be put in the ordinance to quantify or to clarify what happened at the board of supervisors' land use committee meeting in terms of the neighborhood character that a lot of our constituents and many of your districts are concerned with. and, so, i want to make sure that item -- on page 3 of that document, the ordinance that was attached to file number

1404 14 that you earlier passed, on june 9, 2014 by motion no. xxxxx, five x's, for whatever number that ways, the board of supervisors land use and economic development committee adopted a resolution to recommend to the full board of supervisors of that recommendation the 2009 housing element and acknowledged in this meeting that this 2009 housing element is basically not a blanket mandate against maintaining neighborhood character. i'd like you all to consider that because in all these years we've been doing this, all these neighborhoods including 40 plus at coalition san francisco neighborhoods passed in may of 2011 a resolution about neighborhood character. and i go into more details, but even japantown that i've been working with, the guidelines, every single district that i meet people in, they are all consumed with neighborhood character. and i think it is something that the constituents are looking for and we want, you know, this body to make sure that you are listening to your constituents. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, my name is [speaker not understood] and i'm the chair for the san francisco coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, land use and housing committee. i would like to strongly support catherine [speaker not understood] and her testimony. first of all, she said [speaker not understood]. that in itself should make you think twice on this appeal. now, another point is that 25,000 excess units above the 31,000 that was allocated by the -- by abag, that's a large number of excess units. and the reason why that's important, because all these units have removed opportunity

sites and why is that important? what we build now is 80% market rate housing. and the most -- the housing that we develop more is market rate housing. this is for people that have a regular job that work here, teachers, nurses, and even city employees, perhaps your staff, and even you. i believe even at your high wage, you probably by itself could not afford to by the $1,000 per square foot units that are on sale. now, the type of house that's being built are for the newer tech employees and that's fine and good, but there are people here that have lived here for many, many years, decades, that are now being forced out of housing. another important issue is that transit.

the housing element is not considered the transit impact. muni is way behind in deferred maintenance. thank you, supervisor wiener, for bringing that up. that has to be resolved. we can't have one thing going while [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. any other speakers? i want to just clarify, we have not yet acted on item 24 and i also might just take a moment and welcome back former supervisor john bartis to the [speaker not understood]. good afternoon, [speaker not understood], and members of the board. ten years ago the board of supervisors was advised by the planning commission that a negative declaration was appropriate for this housing element 2004. now, ten years later they still are debating that issue because

this board relied on good faith that the planning commission's recommendations were solid. once again, the planning commission is recommending now that the certification of a final e-i-r, which is the attorney [speaker not understood] and 14 neighborhood organizations have appealed. and once again, they're trying to really persuade the board to abandon the kind of compliance that has been acted upon in the past with the planning commission, which has not been in accordance with the law. the appeal by the attorney, over 30 pageses, justifies the merits of the appeal. i urge you to support the appeal and to bring an end to

this process where the city is continually elevating c-e-q-a. and in the process, hopefully there will also be a housing element that will properly address the housing issues that for the last ten years have not been adequately addressed as a result of this proceedings that's been taking place regarding these appeals. all you had to do was comply with the law. i urge you once again to uphold the appeal. >> any other member of the public wish to speak in support of the appellants? okay, at this time why don't we now hear from the department. >> thank you, supervisors. john ram, planning director. i will briefly just make a few comments and turn it over to staff to talk about the specifics of the appeal. we're here today to ask you to reject this current appeal on the e-i-r for the housing element and to readopt the 2009

housing element to remedy the lawsuits by san franciscans for livable neighborhoods, an association of neighborhood groups who challenged both the 2004 and 2009 housing element e-i-r and the adoption of the '09 element in san francisco superior court. your actions today to reject the appeal will allow the adoption of the 2009 element and allow many projects and programs to move forward. briefly the housing element is a required element of the city's plan. general plan elements to remind us all are high-level policy documents and guides. they are not regulatory actions for specific projects. we use the housing element as a city family directing decisions. it is not a code to regulate specific actions. also, the 2009 housing element is a result of long and robust public outreach efforts. there was a 15-member stakeholder sessions, workshops and meeting that occurred in

every supervisorial district in the city. generally the housing element adopted by this boer in 2011, which is essentially the same element that is in front of you today is a document that responds to the diverse needs of the city. everything from respecting neighborhood character, to encouraging growth in our corridors. [speaker not understood] dedicate today maintain affordable housing. again, they are a guide. they do not prevent you or any other decision-makers from pursuing housing related initiatives. and additionally, any changes that would require legislation such as a change in zoning would need community outreach as well as reviewed by the planning commission and this board. along with the planning commission who voted on april 24th to readopt the 2009 element, we are reexpectfully asking you to reject this

appeal [speaker not understood] objectives toward housing and community development and would allow us to continue being eligible for state housing, community development and infrastructure funds. and would also allow us to move forward for the process of approving the 2014 housing me element which is due to the state in january of next year. with that i'll turn it over to [speaker not understood] to speak to the appeal. >> good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board. tyra shana [speaker not understood]. i'm also joined by sarah jones and the senior environmental planner also with the planning department. i will provide a brief overview of the actions that have occurred to date with respect to the 2004 and 2009 housing element environmental impact report or e-i-r. following this overview, i will discuss the appeal specifically and why we strongly believe that the board should uphold

its recertification of the e-i-r. the 2004 and 2009 housing element was originally adopted and e-i-r certified in 2011. subsequently a coalition of neighborhood groups, primarily from the western portion of the city, challenged the e-i-r in the san francisco superior court. in the outcome of those proceedings the court found the 2011 e-i-r was prepared consistent with the california environmental quality act or c-e-q-a and was fully adequate with respect to analysis of the proposed project as well as the type and range of alternatives presented. however, the court directed the planning department to provide additional information [speaker not understood] conclusions reached for each alternative. pursuant to those determinations, the planning department revised alternative chapter of this e-i-r to include all requested information and circulated it for public review. the department also held a public hearing on the e-i-r on january 23rd 2013 of the san francisco planning commission.

one of the other chapters of the e-i-r were revised or recirculated since the court found all of them to be adequate and complete. following the closures of the public comment period on the revised alternatives chapter, the department issued a responses to comments documents on april 10, 2014 and the planning commission unanimously certified the 2004 and 2009 housing element e-i-r on april 24, 2014. an appeal on the certification of the e-i-r was filed on may 22nd, 2014, by the same coalition of neighborhood groups who challenged the e-i-r in court. the majority of the concerns expressed in this appeal are identical to the comments submitted on the revised alternative chapter. comments are already addressed in their responses to comments document. the decision before the board today this appeal is whether to uphold the certification of this e-i-r. as discussed in detail in the planning department's written

response, the appellants' main assertion is the e-i-r should have analyzed additional alternatives to the proposed project. [speaker not understood] no unlimited area plan or no unlimited area planning processes project, the june draft of the 2009 housing alternative and various others. as articulated in our written response, the san francisco superior court specifically found the previous e-i-r [speaker not understood] a reasonable range of alternative. thus it does not require an additional alternative. several many [speaker not understood] have already been considered in the e-i-r but were rejected for other reasons as specified in that document. in general, the alternatives recommended by the appellant either would not meet the objectives of the proposed project, would be infeasible, would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant effect of the project or would not add any meaningful solution to the environmental analysis.

thus the planning department continues to find that the e-i-r that was certified for the proposed project is accurate, adequate and complete and should be upheld. we believe the appellant has not provided any substantial evident to refute the conclusions of the department. we therefore recommend that the board overturn the appeal and uphold the certification of the e-i-r. this concludes my presentation. my colleagues and i are available to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions to city staff? okay. at this time why don't we hear from individuals speaking in behalf of the real party in interest. okay. at this time why don't we hear from the appellant for rebuttal for up to three minutes. >> well, thank you. i think that the city's presentation is an example of the fact that the conclusory nature of the analysis remains

because the city has said that the responses to comments, you know, answered the problems, but they haven't given any specific examples of how they did it. and if you look at the responses to comments, they are also conclusory and they don't provide the actual factual information. it's basically repetition of the same thing over and over again. the court order specifically found that the alternatives rejected in the e-i-r itself, including the focused developmental alternatives and the others, were conclusory and therefore the court didn't under the basis on which the alternatives were rejected. and the city is nots has not corrected that deficiency in any way. secondly, the discussion of alternative a and the conclusive nature of it which i presented ~ and explained that 90% of the growth would occur in the area of plans and there's no evidence that any

significant amount would be relatively disperse have not been rebutted by the city, i just gave that example. in our detailed submission we discussed why alternative b was conclusory. within the 10 minutes allocated i had to rely on the written record on that. so, essentially, we had the same kind of conclusory information being repeated over and over again. we responded to comments. we had a hearing. we did this and that, but you haven't heard one factual example of exactly why, you know, alternative a would be more disperse than the 2009 housing element. so, the defects do remain if you actually read the comments, they are highly evasive, and that's all i can say. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions to any of the parties? okay, at this time this hearing has been held and is filed. [gavel] >> this matter is in the hands of the board.

colleagues? [laughter] >> do we have a motion to either affirm the final e-i-r or reverse certification? supervisor wiener. >> i guess this is motion day for me. i appreciate the appellants' arguments, but i believe that this, that the certification was correct and i'll make the motion to affirm the certification, specifically to move item 34 and table item 35 and 36. >> colleagues, supervisor wiener has made a motion as he described. is there a seconder of that motion? seconded by supervisor tang. take a roll call vote on the motion. >> supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor dado? chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell no. supervisor kim? kim aye.

supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tackv aye. tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 10 ayes and one no. >> the environmental impact report is finally certified. [gavel] >> and then if we could go to item 24, madam clerk, which i think you already read. >> on item 24, supervisor campos? >> aye. >> campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell no. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 10 ayes, one no. >> the ordinance is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> and with that, why don't we go back to our 3:00 p.m. special order with regards to department of public works and

i want to invite up mr. kwan. >> thank you very much. i presented [speaker not understood] with the revised list. we've met with property owners to discuss the various issues that they have brought up. we will be working with the property owners to resolve these matters. we have provided revised list for your approval for the assessment list of properties for assessments for sidewalk repair. >> okay, colleagues, any questions? with that, could i have a motion to approve the amendments that he has asked for? motion by supervisor yee, seconded by supervisor tang. without objection, the amendments to the underlying report are approved. [gavel] >> and if we could take a vote

on the resolution as amended. madam clerk? >> supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> thank you. >> let's go to roll call, madam clerk. >> supervisor campos is first to introduce new business. >> thank you. thank you. first i'd like to introduce a hearing request regarding the possible closure of the university mound ladies home, specifically i want to express

my extreme concern about the possible closure of this institution. university mound ladies home is a university consistent with its mission statement. for more than 100 years has been serving individuals, mostly women of modest means. the importance of providing affordable and compassionate care for seniors cannot be overstated. the closure of this institution in many respects is endemic of the economic crisis and widening affordability gap that is eroding and affecting san francisco. the city has provided assistance to a number of corporate entities and we believe that it's about time that we step up and that we actually do something to protect the dozens of seniors

that cannot afford to lose their housing. for many of these seniors, losing this home would actually be in many respects a death sentence and so i'm requesting a hearing because the residents and families at the university mound ladies home need to have real answers. and even though they have been until now been assured that no resident will be put out on the streets, they have been issued a 60-day eviction notice. and i am asking that the mayor's office, the department of public health, dos and the san francisco long-term care, ombudsman to work collectively to address the issues around the possible closure ~. and i know that there are ongoing negotiations and we want to hear a very detailed plan from the various players involved to make sure that we do everything we can to help

these families. and we will be trying to have this hearing as quickly as possible before the neighborhood services committee. the second item that i have is a resolution urging the state of california to ban clear-cuting in the state. it is critical at this time as we're dealing with climate change and climate instability as well as the challenges with water that we as a state take the appropriate steps it to ban clear-cuting. the practice is highly [speaker not understood]. hundreds of thousands of acres of natural forest have been completely destroyed and replaced by industrial tree farms. with irresponsible logging practices causing dee

forestation worldwide, preservation of healthy forest is essential. [speaker not understood] forests are important because they sequester 15% of greenhouse gas emissions. they reduce global warming. they provide 75% of our water. they cool and humidify our climate. they emit oxygen that prevent flooding, soil erosion, land slides, saltation. [speaker not understood]. they promote ~ [speaker not understood] protect against fires and diseases. they also bring economic benefits, cultural value and recreational opportunities. the benefits go on and on and right now these benefits are being degraded and destroyed in california by ongoing clear-cut logging along with widespread toxic herbicide [speaker not

understood]. we should be sending a strong message and this resolution urges the state legislature to ban clear-cut logging and genetically engineered tree cultivation in the state. i rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor campos. president chiu. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, today i'm introducing legislation to make san francisco the first locale in california to [speaker not understood] to allow agriculture on their land. in recent years [speaker not understood] gardening in the city and establishes citith wide urban ag program. as we all know there is an honest demand by thousands of residents for more space to farm and garden in our city. since our land is scarce and expensive, most land owners choose to develop their property or keep them blighted and vacant. our ordinance which is crafted with significant input from numerous community stakeholders

implements the agriculture zone act passed by assemblyman phil tackvthv. the proposal allowed some property owners to preserve agriculture ~ as a use for their land by allowing them to pay lower property tax he he in exchange for exclusive agriculture use on the lapped for five years. we no urban farming is good bev only because it produces local grown healthy and sustainable fruit. it sustains our environment, [speaker not understood], teaches stewardship, provides food security and advances our public health. other cities in our state are looking to our city for leadership in this area including sacramento, berkeley, oakland, richmond, los angeles and santa cruz. given this idea came from san francisco, i'm proud that our city has been leading the way. i want to thank assemblyman tang for his leadership, [speaker not understood] for her co-sponsorship, my aide for her work on this, but in particular i want to thank the wonderful community of open farmers who have built a movement of open agriculture in our city. the rest of my item i will

submit. >> thank you, mr. president. supervisor cohen. >> thank you. well, as we gather this week to celebrate the history of juneteenth, it's important we tell the african-american story of san francisco from the perspective of its african-americans in the community through exhibitions, lectures, public programs, printed material, guided tours of residents and visitors alike. gaining an understanding and appreciation of the history, culture and the contributions of san francisco's african-american community is critical to preserving and more importantly up lifting the african-american community in san francisco. from william alexander [speaker not understood] to dr. maya angelou to cole train [speaker not understood] african-american rich ancestry can be found in the most unlikeliest places.

colleagues, today i'm asking -- i'm introducing a resolution urging the city of san francisco department of public works and planning department to work to establish the african-american freedom trail by marking points of interest along the trail with a commemorative plaque. colleagues, i hope to have your support of a very important resolution. and the rest i submit. thank you. >> thank you -- >> oh, i also would like to acknowledge that this, this resolution is in co-sponsorship with supervisor breed and supervisor chiu. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor cohen. supervisor farrell. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, today just one resolution introducing that would declare june 24th, 2014 ask day for unlocked guns in the home and ask parents to keep toyer children say. as we know the epidemic of gun violence is claiming children's and teen's lives every month here in our great country. over one-third of american homes with children have guns. many kept unlocked and loaded

and every year thousands of kids are killed and injured as a result. 80% of unintentional firearm deaths of children under 15 occur in the home and children in the united states are more likely to die of gun violence than from all natural causes combined. ashe day falls on the first day of summer june 21st, marking the season when we spend more time at home with friends and family members. national public health campaign hope is asking to become part of our parenting vernacular offering a real solution that all americans can adopt to help protect our families and children and work immediately to save lives. would also encourage all relevancy departments to familiarize themselves [speaker not understood]. i have bilingual stickers in my office for anyone who would like to pick them up and the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor farrell. supervisor kim. >> thank you. so, this is actually a really exciting legislative year here in san francisco.

equity and affordability being at the top of the agenda for san francisco. last week we introduced the strongest and most progressive minimum wage proposal in the country and i know later today some of my colleagues will be introducing with my support as well, the antispeculator tax for the ballot in november 2014. in april i introduced the housing balance ordinance, legislation that our office has been working on for the past three years and that the community has worked on the the past 7 years. today i am introducing an updated housing balance ordinance for consideration by the voters of san francisco this november. i'm introducing two versions, one for signatures and one that can go through the legislative process in an effort to continue to refine the measure and build a larger coalition committed to setting this goal, 30% affordable housing in the city. after extensive conversations with stakeholders, we determined a city-wide housing balance that establishes a balance of 30% affordable