are contradictory. what i would suggest again the reason we propose a voluntary regime to see how it goes. if there is a monitoring report after 1 year or 2-year come back to decide that we need to tweak this and i suspect what i think is likely to happen is the fact that we may not be providing enough financial assistance to home owners to legalize that means we may not see the legalization we want. supervisor avalos pointed out that we may think about an incrementing mechanism to assist hope -- home owners and in that regime we may make it mandatory. i would be willing and i mentioned to supervisor yee if in 2 years we want to have another hearing to take a pause, but

what i don't want to do as i want to echo, we want to legalize units. if they think this is a pilot that is going to end in 2 weeks or a year, they may not want to get involved now. we want to make it available in the market ofn terms of what's permissible. i'm open to that if you would like to see that happen. >> supervisor yee? >>supervisor norman yee: i want to thank you for that offer. my main concern is for the project to have a real check in to see what is we are having. that's why when i say 50, depending on the motivations of individuals who are in this situation. it could happen in 2 months or it may not happen for 10 years in terms of people wanting to

take advantage of this legislation. if supervisor chiu can do check ins, i'm willing to withdraw my amendment. >> supervisors campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you. it's been a very interesting discussion. i want to thank supervisor chiu and yee for all the work gone into this. i do support this legislation. let me say that i support it primarily because i have heard from a number of tenant advocates who believe that this legislation could be used as a tool thigh it makes sense to see that happen. i do share concerns that i don't know if this legislation will

end up doing much and i don't know if people will take advantage of it to the extent that you are talking about people having their property values reassessed if they go through process. i don't know how many people will end up choosing to do that. but i'm willing to take the chance to see if this would work but i have a concern in the end that not much will come out of this. >> supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: are we voting on the amendment? >> any discussion on the e. manet. to -- amendment. if this amendment passes it will go back to the planning commission? >> that's right. if the

amendment is adopted it will require the material under the charter the planning code modifications this amendment would both prohibit legalization in hr 1 and rh 1d in rh 2 and 3 zoning district that it requires additional planning review. >>supervisor john avalos: i believe there is a withdrawal of the motion? >> if supervisor chiu builds in language to assure to look at check in points that i'm willing to withdraw my amendment. >> supervisor yee if i can read the language in the requirement, that there is a point every year and every six 6 months for the first 3

years after the effective date. the zoning administrator and the director of the inspection shall issue a report on the dwelling unit during this program and after 3 years the report will include in the city's housing report and screening forms and building permit applications filed for the first 3 years copies of this report will be submitted to the board and the mayor and controller. when you say what can we do to strengthen this, i'm open to hearing sfrugsz -- suggestions from you on that. if we want to hear a report, that might be appropriate. i'm happy to get feedback from you on what you consider appropriate to do that. >> i think to have a hearing would be appropriate. >> so at the end of 1 year and at the end of 2 years? >> end of 1 year, end of 2 years.

>> i would support that. >> i would withdraw my amendment. >> can i just make a general motion that we include a hearing requirement after the issuance of the 1 year and 2-year report and mr. deputy city attorney can we require the board of supervisors hold a hearing on this topic. >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. the answer is yes, you can make that amendment today and pass the ordinance on first read. generally, the board procedures are, we try not to prescribe board procedures in ordinances because the board's hearing process is generally within the board's authority, but of course it's your policy decision as to whether you want to include that in an ordinance and bind the board i year from now.

>> i'm happy to support this legislation. i'm happy to include a hearing requirement in one and 2 years. so happy to make that motion. >> okay, president chiu has made a motion and second by wiener. can we take that without objection? so moved. supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. supervisor farrell, for me this legislation is a long time coming and complete with what we want to do with it. i do appreciate president chiu bringing it forward. i live in a district that has seen it's population grow by 6,000 residents from 2000-2010 census. my area is redistricted to a smaller size. i moved to compels yoer

from the district in 1999. i moved fl from the compels 84 excelsior district. we have seen incredible dramatic effects in population change. we have seen growth of about 6 thousand people but not have seen 6,000 units being built except for families being doubled up into houses or people put in a garage or a

car doubled out. people living in these homes they have kids going to school in the city of san francisco unified school district and they go to school with my children and there are everyday san franciscans and they deserve the right to housing in this city. we should be looking at how we can make sure of that right can be extended. and not just extended through whatever dilapidated unit we can provide but how we can bring units that are dilapidated up to code. i believe this legislation is going in the right direction towards that end. more needs to be done for that. i appreciate there are principles that i talked about this year or last year when i was looking at doing legalization of in laws that we are trying to an abide by making sure that housing can

remain affordable and extending protections to tennants and making housing more habitable and healthy and looking to homeowner stabilization and working class families that supervisor breed was talking about who own their homes and have their homes for decades who are maybe janitors or sector teachers and this is one way to carve out their income to pay for their mortgage. we have seen in parts of san francisco a huge number of defaults and foreclosures that hasn't be addressed in this city. that we do not have a program that can help enable households to be able to remain in san francisco when

they are very marginably able to afford it and people have left because they no longer can afford in this city. through a battle i put language in the housing trust fund that would lead to stabilization of housing. it was actually originally the intent was to have a home own -- homeowner stabilization fund. which is part of prop c. would allow for home owners to have funds to bring their homes up to code and to be able to do seismic retro fit and bring your home to code.

it's by having access to the prop c funds. and unfortunately the mayor's office of housing while focused on building affordable housing is important is not creating the program that will be able to address the defaults and foreclosures happens in san francisco and in the lack of ability we have in the southern part of san francisco that are leading to housing units that are not up to code. while i believe this legislation is incomplete, i'm happy to work on it to help create the incentive that is lacking here. i have actually talked to the mayor's of housing in this very room about the lack of attention they have sgliefrjtsdz -- p support the southeast of san francisco. something has to be done about it glathsdz today

talked about it. i want to make sure we can look into this. i think this legislation will open the doorway for that to happen. i really appreciate this legislation coming forward. i also want to appreciate the work of asian and vantage justice who talked to many households that have in law units that are secondary units. they found that a great number of the people living in these households are immigrants and transit dependent. that they are typical san franciscans that you find in the city of san francisco unified school district which is mostly low income, people that have the right to san francisco and we should be creating mechanisms for them to stay here. i appreciate the legislation and look forward to it passing today. i hope it does because

it's something that san franciscans really need. let me say this, i heard from many people in my district who would love to see in laws go away. i have thought about that. making them go away is to say to the thousands of people who live in them that you no longer belong in san francisco. that doesn't make any sense. we into ed to make sure that people who are living in san francisco who are contributing to our economy and part of our school district can stay here and make it their city of their own. thank you. >> supervisors tang? >>supervisor katy tang: thank you for your comments. i believe we have a huge number of those in law units. when my parents first moved to san francisco, my family was a family of four and we lived in the sunset district. i know with immigrants with not much income that is only one of the

ways that we are able to live here in san francisco. with that said, i do want to appreciate supervisor chiu in his office for tackling this difficult issue. i do appreciate there is a prescreening process that really does not provide penalties and it is a volunteer program, however, i think that where i have hesitation is actually through some of the comments that were expressed by supervisor kim and i know we have different districts and many of the issues you brought up i share as well. i don't know what are the incentives for many of the property owners who want to take advantage of this program. what has been mentioned already is the pass tlus. -- pass throughs. many of these in law units need help with their mortgage payment and they do not have the financial resources to make these improvements. no.

2, something that hasn't be brought up much today but concerns me if someone a property owner decides they no longer want to rent a unit out anymore, they would have to go through this entire planning process to remerge their units back to single family homes and go through mandatory discretionary review process and that will cost lots of money and we have seen many hurdles. when we talk about the sunset district, we are talking about single family homes, a very personal space and not giving them the flexibility to decide and decide that i want to continue on as a single family home. i do agree that they are out there and they exist and we must do something to address them. there have been a number of issues that i have not seen addressed in this legislation that gives me pause. so with all of that said, our office

has been working with planning department to figure out how it is to increase the number of housing units in district 4, it's equally challenging conversation and equally hard to figure out what the incentives will be and that is a conversation we are trying to have to address the over lying issue in our city which san francisco is a very attractive place to live and we'll always have people who want to live here but it's very expensive. again, i want to thank supervisor chiu for all of your hard work of this legislation but i do not feel that property owners despite it being a volunteer program would want to take advantage of. >> supervisors farrell? >>supervisor mark farrell: thank you. i want to thank you for your hard work. in terms

of this legislation, very conflicting points of view of view from my perspective and i hear from my neighbors and other neighbors in the city that there are people already living in these units. i will say out right that i disagree with parts of this legislation particularly with the cost past through and the mergers and the ability or lack thereof. in court what has been in my head is what we are doing principally to talk about by supervisor yee and tang and i appreciate supervisor wiener for taking out some of that language. i do know we see families leaving and we have families that cannot afford to stay here and there are families

looking for certain kinds of stock in this city. if this does too well that we start to lose our pure single families in our neighborhood. the beauty in our city is about our neighborhoods and diversity of our different neighborhoods. if some people want to live in high rises or a single family home. we have done some zoning changes. i support that. i think we should have housing stock to support anybody who wants to live in this type of housing in san francisco. that is a concern of mine. on the flip side this is an opt in program. that is designed on the flip side for families maybe on the edge of not being able to stay in san francisco would want to rent their in law units to be able to stay in our city to keep families here and to some of

supervisor avalos comments about having protection and having live in units up to code. i do have some hesitation around the potential consequences but because of the nature i share some of the comments that have been made that many of the owners that i have spoken with are not going to take advantage of this but because it's opt in, i think it's worth trying. i know supervisor chiu it's something i would support. >> supervisor chiu and kim? >>supervisor jane kim: i want to appreciate the conversation again and appreciate the check in hearings that's been placed on the year and 2 years. of course i have the concern that i had articulated earlier but i acknowledge that as speculation as well as who will opt into program. i want to say that i absolutely hear

what supervisor avalos is speaking of and we have home owners that depend on that type of income, while i'm not sure they will opt into this program because they are concerned about making those capital out lays. i hope the supervisors will follow up soon with an incentive program to help those home owners out. the cost of bringing up to code and by paying more property taxes without being able to raise the rent. i wouldn't want the property owner to do but it has very little incentive. i'm going support it that we will soon follow up with some type of incentive program. that supervisor avalos articulated which by i think incentivize the home owners that we would like to see opt into this program. i would like to

thank everyone for their work on this and i know president chiu's office spent a lot of time on this legislation. >> supervisor chiu? >> just some closing comments. i want to thank all the members of the public and all the stakeholders and all the staff for your thoughts and work on this and i very much appreciate the concerns. i want to help supervisor avalos if you are thinking about going forward in a funding opportunity in terms of assisting owners to currently assisting owners with their building and safety requirements and it's something we need to do. frankly it was a difficult part of the conversation and we weren't able to figure that out and i very much hope that we will be able to work together through your office to do that and i want to take a moment to some of the points that supervisor tang raised in

the fact that this legislation does not allow for cost for pass throughs by the owners and remergers except for those passed by the board under avalos leadership. the reason we absolutely considered those items but the concerns around ford affordability is why we want to make sure that we didn't create any upward pressures on their rent. that is why we did this as a careful balance. that being said if we find out in 2 years that there aren't enough incentives for people that want to legalize the units whether a lack of requirements are creating incentives for property owners and i want to just acknowledge the genuine concern and let you know that we had been thinking about it. one final thanks and statement. i want to thank my

aid amy chang who devoted the past year on this. i want to thank you for your leadership on this and the final statement which is after 70 years of a shadow economy and don't ask don't tell set of city policies, i hope we can stabilize critical affordable housing for the thousands of our most vulnerable residents and colleagues, i ask for your support. >> on this ordinance, anything else colleagues? as amended if we can have a roll call. >> city clerk: chiu, cohn, farrell, tang, no, supervisor wiener, aye, supervisor yee, no, supervisor avalos, aye, breed, hee, campos. 8 ayes,

two no. >> why don't we go back to our 3:00 p.m. special order. madam clerk please call items 19-22 item 19:[public hearing - appeal of exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the san francisco municipal transportation agency sfmtaa board of directors approval of resolution no. 14-023, california environmental quality act categorical exemption determinations for commuter shuttle policy and pilot program and amending transportation code, division ii, and approval of motion to suspend the sfmta board of directors rules of order , article 4, section 10, regarding published notice approved on january 21, 2014. appellants; richard t. drury and christina m. caro, on behalf of sara shortt, the harvey milk lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender democratic club, service employees international union local union 1021, and san francisco league of pissed-off voterss filed february 19th, 201441234 sfitem 20: affirming the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion affirming the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt201441234 item 20: affirming the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program]

motion affirming the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from 201441234 item 20: affirming the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion affirming the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review 1234 item 2: 140127: sponsor: wiener resolution of intent initiating the nomination of the sequoiadendron giganteum tree at 3066 market street for landmark tree status pursuant to public works code , section 8100bb; acknowledging the temporary designation of such tree pursuant to public works code , section 8100dd; and authorizing other official acts in furtherance of this resolution 1234 item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. 21234 item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. twenty-one 1234 item 22: [preparation of findings to reverse the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is from environmental review. twenty-one 1234 item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco

municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. 221234 ooul >> we have before us the appeal for review. this project is cat egorically expect. we'll hear from the appellant and then we'll hear from the appellant and we'll hear from the planning department who have their grounds on this determination for this final review. finally from planning from project sponsor the transportation municipal agency and we'll hear from members of the public that support the mta and each speaker will have up to 10 minutes to speak and finally the appellants will have up to 3 minutes for rebuttal arguments. if there are any objections to proceeding in this way. why don't we hear from our appellant mr. drurey. >> thank you president chiu. my name is richard drurary representing appellant schwartz of the democratic club and the san francisco of league of voters on this matter. we are passing out an additional comment letter. i'm sorry for the lateness of this letter. it responds to two issues from yesterday. one to the budget legislative analyst which is absolutely critical to this matter which was by

supervisor eric mar who is attending other issues with his daughter in disneyland. it's very important. it's spring break and he should be there. the other report by responding to our early letter. i have done this as quickly as i can. i hope you will take the time to read this, especially budget analyst report is absolutely critical to this vote. i would like to start out by focusing on attention on ceqa which is what this matter is about. the fundamental rule of ceqa is that environmental review is supposed to occur before the agency takes action, not after. you don't approve a project and then find out what are the impacts by measuring air quality, pedestrian safety risk after the buses are

already out of the gate. satisfy -- ceqa review is supposed to take action before, not after. the city attorney agrees that these shuttle buses are illegally using muni red zones in violation of state vehicle code. these are pirate shuttles. these are illegal. the city is about to allow 200 of these pirate bus shops with hundreds of shuttle buses carrying thousands of people from san francisco without any ceqa environmental review at all. despite the fact that there is expert testimony in the record showing that these

buses run on diesel fuel. they cause cancer risk that exceeds ceqa threshold adopted by our bay area district and slows down muni transportation time. that cause conflicts with bicycles and displays our low income and modern income community about who we were just speaking in the last item. at the same time, we are trying to create new housing opportunities for low and moderate income people in secondary housing units and loudable goal we are creating shuttle buses that displace the low income people we are trying to help. ceqa recognizes -- >> can i mention this. we have a rule in the board