environment and lots of important benefits without any discussion and without a thorough review of the environmental impacts which i think are significant. and i'll just read from the december mta report and i think there is tremendous contradiction with the mta's decision given their december report which i think needs to be referenced more and more. i'm just reading from the street blog article from aaron [speaker not understood] from january 16th where he questions whether rolling back the sunday meters would lead to significant environmental impacts. he's asking in the article that the mayor's position could be framed in another way. do we want to double the average time drivers take to find commercial parking spots on sundays? do we want to reduce turn over by at least 20%, meaning that fewer customers can park in each space? do we want to cut the availability of commercial parking during sunday business hours in half? do we want to reduce occupancy

of under utilized parking garages on sundays like 13%? i think the december report shows that good benefits of the policy, and i feel that reversing it and rolling it back is not a step towards the transit first city. i feel like it's a step towards car dominant city and that's the total opposite direction i want to go as a supervisor on this board. all just say that the appellants have raised some good issues and i hear the legal arguments from some of my colleagues, but i do feel that framing categorical exemption or statutory exemption is really the legalese of what you've done, which is tucking important issue that needed much more environmental analysis. so, that's why i'll be supporting the appeal. >> colleagues, let's take a roll call vote. madam clerk? >> supervisor campos? >> can we have a motion? >> supervisor wiener's motion to affirm the statutory exemption.

>> aye. >> campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar no. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos no. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 9 ayes and two no's. >> the statutory exemption is finally affirmed. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call the items related to the housing element e-i-r p.l.. >> items 33 through 36 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the planning commission's decision dated april 24th, 2014 certifying a final environmental impact report for the proposed 2004 and 2009 housing element. item 34 is a motion to affirm the planning commission's certification of the final environmental impact report. item 35 is a motion to reverse the commission's certification of the final environmental

impact report. and item 36 is a motion to direct the preparation of findings. >> colleagues, we have in front of us today the appeal of the final environmental impact report for the 2004 and 2009 housing element. for these hearings we normally consider the adeqcy, accuracy, sufficiency, and completeness of the final environmental impact report of which you all have copies. but because this is an appeal of a revised e-i-r, chapter 31 of the administrative code limits our board's review to only those portions of the e-i-r that have been revised. in this case, these would be just the alternative section. we'll first hear from the appellants who will have up to 10 minutes in total to describe the grounds for the appeal. we will then take public comment from individuals speaking on behalf of the appellants. each speaker will have two minutes to present. we will then hear ha from the planning department who will have 10 minutes to describe the ground for the certification of the e-i-r. we will have someone speaking on behalf of the real party in

interest. then appellants will have three minutes for rebuttal. colleague, any questions? seeing none, i will ask appellant to make your initial presentation. >> thank you, mr. president, members of the board. i'm cathy supervisor farrell and i represent san franciscans for livable neighborhoods in this appeal. we're here because the superior court found that the city violated the requirements of the california environmental quality act because the e-i-r's discussion of alternatives was conclusory and unsupported by fact and the findings rejecting alternatives were conclusory and unsupported by fact. the court set aside the certification of the e-i-r and approval of policies with potential for physical environmental impact. and the city -- excuse me. the court issued a writ ordering the city to refrain from approving the enjoined changes in the 2009 housing element until it complies with c-e-q-a and significantly. the writ states that the writ will remain in effect until the court determines based on your

return that you fully complied with c-e-q-a as to the matters set forth herein. i mention this so that you don't overlook the fact that the city may not reapprove the 2009 housing element under this writ. the writ which is served on the city requires the court determine whether you've corrected the deficiencies before you can reapprove the housing element. and i see in item 24 you passed the reapproval on the first reading. so, i just want to make sure you haven't overlooked this. now, the revision has not corrected the defects in the analysis of alternatives or findings. they're still conclusory and unsupported by facts. a couple preliminary facts, the e-i-r states the pipeline units anticipated to be developed to 25,000 more than the 31,000 units sought by the regional housing needs allocation for the 2007 to 2014 planning period, and further rezoning an area planning could add another

27,000. the e-i-r also admits that the allocation can be accommodated under existing zoning. the city has been overproducing market rate housing at 150% of its target whereas only 13% of the moderate housing was produced. the e-i-r eliminated the focused development alternative and the discussion is still conclusory. the revision explains that this alternative would comprise existing zoning at the time of notice of preparation was issued and it would include the increased capacity provided in area plans adopted after the 2004 housing element which increased capacity by over 55,000 units and served to expand potential development capacity in these areas using tools such as high increases, removal of maximum density, removal of minimum required lot sizes and reduction or elimination of parking requirements.

since the area plans approved included strategies that encourage affordable housing, evidence does not support the claim in the revision that this alternative would compromise the city's ability to achieve the affordability goals of the arena. the allegation that these policies and this alternative allowed little or no growth for outside of these areas with unexplained and contrary to the definition of this alternative as utilizing the existing zoning outside the plan area. so, the allegation this alternative would require down zoning or limited [speaker not understood] outside of the plan area is contrary to the definition of this alternative as using the existing zoning. what it means is that you just don't rezone the areas outside the plan area. the plan areas have already been up zoned. so, that made no sense. the reduced land use

alternative stated in the e-i-r was some allocation which distributed projected growth to unidentified geographic areas and assumed less growth city-wide. the revision and responseses to comments still fail to identify the geographic areas to which the land use allocation would be allocated and fail to state the lower number of units. so, we still don't know. the revision claims that housing produced under alternative a would generally result in patterns of residential development that are relatively dispersed throughout the city compared to the 2009 element. so, this is flatly contradicted by the definition of alternative a [speaker not understood] existing redevelopment plans were 90% of the additional housing is expected to be constructed. and as explained by the legislative analyst, the tools that were adopted in these new area plans such as maximum density removal, and height

increases and elimination of parking requirement or reduction approving development strategies which increase housing production. ~ where 90% the evidence in the record shows that the lion's share of the growth is intended to be focused in these plan areas. so, since 90% of the growth is expected there where growth is directed to transit, there is no evidence indicating that a significant or appreciable amount of growth outside the plan areas would occur in disperse locationed throughout the city and the e-i-r provides no estimate or attempts to explain how much growth would occur outside those areas. so, the discussion of alternative [speaker not understood] is it still conclusory. and the assertion of alternative a could result in more developments built to the maximum building heights city-wide than the 2009 housing element is also conclusory and unsub poderthed because the policies in the 1990 residence

element strongly maintains neighborhood character and didn't contain any policies that encouraged development built to maximum building heights. ~ a so, the evidence does not support the [speaker not understood] alternative a would increase housing to a greater extent in the 2009 housing element. we submitted expert testimony by city planner david [speaker not understood] that there are feasible alternatives available that would reduce effects and because this project would have a significant effect on transit it's unlawful for the city to approve it if there are feasible alternatives available. so, based on this evidence it would be unlawful to reapprove the housing element. the june draft of the housing element was feasible. it contained language stating that in rh-1 and 2 neighborhoods, density would be maintained to preserve neighborhood character. this was eliminated in subsequent draft and an expert explained this would degrade the quality of those neighborhoods.

and also this change was not vetted with the community advisory group. another feasible alternative explained by the expert is to eliminate the unlimited area plans and policy 1.2. the 2009 housing element generally promotes increased density through use of community planning [speaker not understood]. while implementation of the housing element would not directly affect area development plans, the e-i-r says it would encourage new area plans with similar planning related strategies that may be designed to accommodate growth. directing housing to fewer areas or providing lesser housing units would reduce the significant impacts on transit which are based on lack of funds to increase the transit based on the increased housing growth. and there is a lot of testimony that the city is currently experiencing incapacity problems with muni and it's not just a future problem.

the expert also explained that the excess market rate transit subsidy alternative is feasible and under this one the alternative would impose a appropriate per transit mitigation fee on all market rate housing units that are produced in excess of the market reallocation of market rate units in the applicable planning period and use the money to reduce the significant impacts on transit. this was feasible and as we explained, the over production of the market rate housing units is contrary to the [speaker not understood] allocation. the overproduction of market rate condominiums [speaker not understood] silicon valley and other locations to the south of san francisco especially as to the condominiums being built in the south of market area near the freeway on ramp. the city used the wrong standard in rejecting alternatives. if there is any evidence in the record that there is a feasible

alternative that could reduce the significant effect, the city is precluded from reapproving the housing element. but the city instead referred to the different standards saying that the e-i-r analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives. that's a different standard than the standard that applies to whether you can approve it based on the fact that there are feasible alternatives available. so, these are just some examples, you know. we incorporate our comments 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