over the counter for required parking spaces in rh2 districts or greater. since c would aggressively promote more growth and increase density, it would not lessen effects. under ceqa, an e.i.r. should consider a reduced growth alternative if it would meet most of the objectives of the project and avoid or lessen any effects. residents proposed three variants of reduced growth which the board refused to rexinize. the 11 area plans approved provide capacity for 39,600 units and the newly proposed ones for an additional 18,200 for a total of 57,800. appellants propose that the city consider the alternative of no additional area plans in rezoning since the e.i.r. admits that the units already in the pipeline anticipated to be developed total 25,000 units more than the city s chair of the 31,000 new unit regional housing needs allocation for this planning period 2007 to 2014 so they re already in excess without more area plans. the proposed increased capacity for the period up to
rebuttal. colleagues, unless is objection to proceeding in this way, why don t we open up the hearing. let me ask if there s a representative from the appellant who wants to start the presentation. thank you, president chiu and members of the board. i m kathryn devincenzi, attorney representing the 13 neighborhood organizations who are members of san franciscans for livable neighborhoods. the city was ordered to prepare this e.i.r. by the court of appeal. when the city approved the first increased density reduced parking amendments to the housing elements of the general plan without full environmental review in 2004. the court enjoined the city from implementing the changes in policies and until the city fully complied with ceqa, permitted the city to rely on the unchanged policies that were carried forward from the 1990 residence element into the 2004 element. the enjoined changes included max miization of densities, reduced or eliminated parking requirements, creatively a
holding them accountable, is really challenging in the city. it s hard to find the people and once we do, there are judges who do not want to put even the most egregious offenders in jail. it s viewed as a victimless crime. and we know that when you hold people accountable, whether you force them to clean the graffiti themselves or send them to jail and appropriate circumstances, it can make an impact but i think people know you can come to san francisco to do graffiti and nothing s going to happen to you so i ve been working with supervisor carmen chu s office and we re working to improve those systems so people are held accountable so we re not simply imposing the obligation on the property owners but we re doing our part as a city to help address this issue but with that said, i think that d.p.w. s actions here were appropriate and i ll be voting to affirm that termination. thank you. president chiu: thank you. colleagues, any other follow-up questions for d.p.w. staff