population and these claims are contradicted by the city's water supply which states that under abag's growth principles, higher density growth will be focused in san francisco and its population is expected to increase by 17% by 2030 and these effects cause vehicle miles traveled to go up because people still have cars which increases particulate emissions from autos so there are localized effects from this policy. further, an objective of the 2009 housing element is to support sustainable regional housing and environmental goals and the 2009 element contains a new policy 13.1 supporting smart regional growth, 13.3 that promotes sustainable land use patterns in order to increase transit and limit the need for a private car. however, the e.i.r. fails to analyze the effects of implementing these new policies which are clearly intended to support the sustainable community policy promulgated by abag to aggressively encourage new housing development in priority development areas and even though this planning process is currently in effect the city already applied to abag in 2007 to designa

thank you to abag for being here. is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? if so, please come forward. seeing no one, public comment is closed. next item? >> item number 7. update on regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy and san francisco transportation plan call for projects. >> if i may, we have an action item still on the agenda. looking at the clock -- supervisor campos: let's move on to item no. 8. >> item #8. recommend commitment of up to $150 million in additional state regional improvement program funds, with conditions, to the central subway project to provide supplemental assurances to the federal transit administration in support of the san francisco municipal transportation agency's plan to cover potential cost overruns beyond the $1.578 billion baseline project cost. >> i have brief, verbal presentation, that ithe centralm manager to give a on this topic. what we have for you is close the gap. it did involve some complicated reprogramming, but they w

as michael also mentioned, this project has been designated as a priority development area by abag. the c.a.b. asks for your authorization of the documents before you today and we appreciate. also, if i may, ruth had to leave. i see i have a little more time and she left me a note and asked if i would read this, for which i need my glasses. ruth wants to convey her support for the execution of the i.c.a. as the storm water management details are decided in the future negotiations, she hopes that you will seek to maximize the multiple benefit of the water quality improvement wild life habitat environmental education and aesthetic enjoifment and i thank you from both of us. >> thank you. next. ms. jackson. >> good afternoon, espinola jackson. i really didn't come t to speak on this issue, but since it came up while i'm here, i did not hear any mention of local hiring. and i had heard some disturbing news, i any a week or two ago when two of your committees met together, stating that they did not have to do local hiring. i would like to make sure that you understand that local hiring h

while taking abag that 17,000 infill units could be built in these expanded areas surf as a secondary unit, the department gave no explanation to the community for these changes. the last one is certainly intended to support secondary units in these areas. so we urge you to reject this proposal with its last-minute amendment and send it back to the planning commission with instructions to eliminate the amendments or subject them to full environmental review. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. did you sign up for both these items? >> i am from san francisco tomorrow. we have filed the appeal. if you will put on the overhead, you will notice state code requirements regarding the implementation requirements for the housing element that are missing from the element, despite prodigious efforts being made, prodigious effort to need to be yet made regarding what is required for how you implement it. what is required and how do you make it work? then, that job becomes transferable to the board of supervisors, compared to the other priority needs for health, welfare, and safety. that is the

along those lines, we have undertaken a couple of major statewide issues with abag, allies in san francisco and other cities. we are asking for clear seismic retrofitting standards. why is that important? after loma pripet know, a lot of people in oakland got their homes retrofitted. we did a study and it showed 60% of those retrofits would not meet the standards of what we consider a decent retrofit. we have been nagging the legislature to develop basic standard. they had develop standards for single-family homes, probably have approved similar standards like it. they have not yet done it for soft story buildings and multi- family houses. i know there are international standards, so there needs to

along those lines, we have undertaken a couple of major statewide issues with abag, allies in san francisco and other cities. we are asking for clear seismic retrofitting standards. why is that important? after loma pripet

based on what i am hearing from the housing element and based on what i pear from abag reports and all the other studies i am constantly hearing presented to us here, i am not sure how some of the projects we're being asked to approve meet any of the standards around affordability and meeting the needs of families and keeping families here in san francisco. at some point, you know, it would be interesting to note who are moving into these units of three-bedroom housing in the mission. a lot of the new projects that we're approving here, projects that have been aproved over the past five years, i would like to know if there is a way the know who is living in two and three-bedroom units that we are allegedly making available in order to fill the void for family housing in the city. when i hear people say things like this is the type of housing we need more of, i am not convinced that it is, especially not given the price point of most of the housing we are seeing on the market. at the end of the day, it is 55 feet and that is what we approved here and i think it's too tall and there is a

while taking abag that 17,000 infill units could be built in these expanded areas surf as a secondary unit, the department gave no explanation to the community for these changes. the last one is certainly intended to support secondary units in these areas. so we urge you to reject this proposal with its last-minute amendment and send it back to the planning commission with inst