of 3000 feet without increasing the legal unit count are more than 100 percent and for residential development that results in greater than 55 percent total lot coverage and making the appropriate findings. >> okay. supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam president. colleagues these zoning controls we're considering today helping to bring some order to a troubling trend that we're seeing of transforming smaller or regular sized existing single family homes and replacing them with massive single family homes not really adding new housing but turning smaller single family homes into very large single family homes and breaking up a bulk of the lot in the process and the legislation has the

support of the neighborhood associations in the area and the neighborhood valley association and the current situation in the neighborhood is becoming chaotic and there's a number of projects that have been subject to the discretionary review or that it appears they will be subject to discretionary review they are going to the planning commission anyway and this legislation will not ban any of these projects or place a a moratorium on any project so we know from the beginning what the process is in terms of moving towards a planning committee hearing doesn't apply to modest home renovations or smaller additions to homes. it applies when a building is being turned into a dramatically larger building

and the legislation of course simply applies conditional use which is a well-established concept in san francisco and provide an incentive not to kill development but rather for all parties to work together to shape specific projects so that they are in fact positive additions to the neighborhood and the legislation would apply to any expansion of a home or building that will exceed 3000 square feet. if the expansion results in the home being expanded by more than 75 percent or if you are adding a unit more than 100 percent so if the project is less than 3000 square feet this does not apply

. this applies to large buildings that we have seen a dramatic expansion of the size of the building. so colleagues, the legislation i think makes a lot of sense. these are interim controls and we can sit down and think about what are the ideal permanent controls in the area. i do want to address some communications we've heard about this legislation somehow being antihousing which is absolutely not the case. as i noted, this legislation is not a a moratorium or ban. these projects are already for the most part going through the planning commission through discretionary review. i also

want to note this neighborhood starts this area this zone, starts a mere 3 blocks from castro and market and for those who have been in upper market recently you will know that between castro street and octavia street we're seeing a thousand units of housing that have been added or in the process of being added and this zone starts a mere 3 blocks from that housing so for anyone who suggests this is about somehow preventing the addition of housing in this area that is not the case a lot of housing is being included in this neighborhood and in addition the castro in-law legislation that we passed last year includes the bulk of this zone so we basically up zoned this area corporate heights and

corona heights so that that people can go 1 unit above the zoning this neighborhood did not object to that and indeed there was a lot of support for that legislation so this is not a situation where we have people simply opposing the development or the addition of new housing. this is a neighborhood that has embraced new housing but turning into a larger massive single family home is not adding new housing. colleagues, we need to make sure as that housing is added, it's done in a in a way that's respectful to our neighborhoods. it makes sense to apply it here colleagues, i ask for your support and i want to thank everyone for their

work and thank you for putting together these controls. >> thank you supervisor wiener supervisor campos. >> thank you very much i want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing this item forward and i'm very happy to support this item today and i think that it's important the clarification that supervisor wiener made i think it's important that when you have these kinds of interim controls whether you call them a moratorium or whatever the tool that's used, there are individuals who try to label that as being antihousing and i think that supervisor wiener properly noted that these kinds of interim controls are not antihousing and there's an e-mail that i received i think it was received from someone criticizing what's being proposed because in their view as currently written the legislation could block

opportunities for new housing such as unit additions and cohousing and this individual sees any kind of control or limitation as disincentive izing and they don't want that but as supervisor wiener noted, there are neighborhoods that have seen a lot of housing production, a lot of construction that nonetheless, not with standing the fact they have embraced that belief that it's important for protecting the character of their neighborhood and to establish interim controls and what's really striking about what's being proposed is how the comments in support of this measure are comments that could very well come out of my district and i'll preview some some of the things we heard. someone wrote we have long build that the residents of a

community should have a voice when development or other changes are proposed which would significantly impact neighborhood character and that's from the eureka valley neighborhood association and someone said i urge the board of supervisors to adopt permanent controls that will preserve the character of this charming neighborhood. we shouldn't we shouldn't erode affordable housing. there are enough luxury condos being built and diversity is an important ingredient for a city to survive from a resident of city heights those comments have been made by specifically residents of the mission that have proposed their own interim

controls for purposes of protecting the character of their neighborhood and i hope that that as we consider giving corona heights the ability to have control over their own destiny in deciding what goes into a neighborhood, i also hope that we recognize that it's not just corona heights but other neighborhoods that need the same consideration. if it's good for corona heights it should also be good for the mission and other parts of the city to have the same opportunity to provide interim controls because while the issue in corona heights may be monster homes in neighborhoods like the mission, the issue is affordable housing. that's the reality we're facing and i believe we have a responsibility to empower each neighborhood to have a say in its own future that to me is what this proposal is about

and i hope that we pass it and create a precedent for giving other neighborhoods the opportunity to do the same. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor campos supervisor yee? >> thank you president breed i need some clarification. i was a little confused with this only because there seems to be overlaps in the area for different zoning controls so and i just didn't have the chance to look at the map and to follow this closely. i just happened to look at the agenda over the weekend and said oh my goodness, , which one is this and it's the same author so my question really is -- and there

was some clarification there might be some overlap, but which of these zoning controls would you be or the city would be using for instance the question i had in my mind -- if there's a vacant lot and there's not a whole lot of vacant lots but say it's vacant and they are allowing even r 1 to be r 2, in law, 900 square feet then 21 hundred square feet for one more unit would almost put you over the 3000 square feet so seems like that's not a monster housing to me so was there any consideration with those types of situations in this? >> okay so supervisor wiener, you would like to respond to

this? >> oh sure to the president supervisor yee so if you have a 2100 square foot unit and let's say you add a thousand square foot to it for an additional unit that would not be covered by these controls not only do you have to go over 3000 square feet but you have to more than double the size of the building and if it's a single family home you have to increase it by more than 75 percent so you can have a situation where you have a you know say a 2000 square foot home and increasing it to 3400 square feet and we intentionally made it so it only captured the truly

significant expansives. >> let me clarify -- i don't know if there's vacant lots but if there were and you wanted to build a thousand square foot in-law, would would that be over the limit? >> in this neighborhood that's a very interesting neighborhood in many different ways and one way we have something called through lots where you have a single parcel of land starting at one street and goes back to another street say from state street to or kid court and the building pattern is they would build a home on one side of the lot and on the other side would remain as green space essentially rear yard space and so there's a trend of subdividing those lots and i believe the bulk of the actual

vacant lot and if someone wanted to build a building there greater than 3000 square feet you can still get the yard but if it's over 3000 square feet, you would need to seek a conditional use so only if you are building more than 3000 square feet and so if it were an r 2, and there's a lot of r 2 in this area and they were both 15 hundred square foot units, you would not trigger the conditional use. it's only if it's very very large. >> supervisor yee, does that clarify the issue for you at this time? >> yeah it's more for clarification. it wasn't not to to support this. i was not going to not support it. it

was just for clarification. >> okay thank you. supervisor wiener? >> i do want to respond to supervisor campos's remarks. i agree that in any neighborhood it's important for the community to have a voice and that's what the conditional use process is for the conditional use process guarantees that the community will have a voice and that's what we're trying to do here if you are fwg if you are going to have a dramatic expansion of a home the community will have a voice nobody in corona heights that i'm aware of was requesting a ban on new housing development or a moratorium no one was saying don't add anything new here they simply wanted conditional use and that's very different from what i've heard and again, i just know what i've read and have not been

privy to every conversation in terms of a mor tore a. >> if i've misinterpreted i'd be happy to clarify so no more of that type of housing production. those projects in the mission that i believe are at issue, are already to my knowledge, subject to conditional use whether you are building in the upper market or anywhere else when you are building a project that has a number of units in it, it will trigger the square footage you are required and already has to go through conditional use and what's being requested in the mission is not conditional use but an actual moratorium and a

ban on new on new market produced housing so that's a very very different thing. had neighbors come to me in corona heights and said we want to ban new development in our neighborhood i would have said i respect your view but i respectfully decline i do think it's important to acknowledge that distinction and not to just say well, because we're approving controls in one neighborhood that means any controls that anyone wants in any neighborhood no matter how extreme we have to adopt them and i don't think that's the case we take it case by case and see what makes sense. >> thank you supervisor wiener supervisor campos? >> thank you madam president i hope those that are paying attention to these issues understand yes it's a case by case issue but at the end of the days those of us here may

try to differentiate things based on technicalities bottom line is that here you have two neighborhoods that are trying to place limits on the kind of development that goes into those neighborhoods. the difference actually between the two neighborhoods right now in terms of where corona heights is and where the mission is, is that we, in my office, have yet to actually introduced a formal proposal for the mission and yet there has been opposition already to something that hasn't even been presented but the reality is that in in each case neighbors want to slow down a certain type of development. in the case of corona heights they want to slow down what they perceive to be monster housing

developments that's inconsent with the character of that neighborhood in the mission people want to slow down the development of luxury housing. and you may try to differentiate it because each one is unique in its own form but it's driven by the same objective and same goal which is to protect the character of the neighborhood and my point is that whatever the tool that the individual neighborhood wants to utilize, it is appropriate for each neighborhood to want to actually have a a say in what development should look like. that is the point, and i stand by that point and i hope that when the issue of what happens in neighborhoods like the mission comes up before this board of supervisors, that we remember what we're doing here today because it is at the end

of the day driven by the same objective of protecting the character of these neighborhoods. thank you. >> thank you supervisor campos madam clerk, can you please call the roll. >> on item 19 supervisor kim supervisor kim aye. >> supervisor mar aye. >> supervisor tang aye. >> supervisor wiener aye. >> supervisor yee aye. >> supervisor avalos aye. >> president breed aye. >> supervisor campos aye. >> supervisor christensen aye. >> supervisor cohen aye. >> supervisor farrell aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> this resolution is adopted unanimously madam clerk can you please call the next item. >> supervisor kim is first up to introduce new business. >> thank you madam clerk i am introducing a hearing and a

resolution today. first the hearing. as many of you know, we have been talking a lot about fires here in san francisco over the last couple of weeks. most people do not realize that 8 out of ten fires occur in homes and they are also fast as many of you know. they can go from a tiny flame to to total destruction in as little as 3 minutes. they can provide you with the precious extra time you might need to escape the building safely as the as the fire grows larger. with 85 percent of these deaths caused by fires in residential structures every year almost 16 thousand men women and children are also injured and the loss of life risk of injury isn't just for residents but our

fire fighters are at risk of serious injury. the beginning of 2015 has been a terrible one for many of our fellow san franciscans due to fire. there was one in the mission, the tenderloin and the castro district and caused about 13 $13 million in damage and tragedy ly took the life of one of our residents. we've been working closely with the fire department and building owners. even one life is too many to lose to a fire when we actually have a tool in place tested and

proven to save lives in homes. between 1989 and 2002 more than 1700 single home occupancy units. since its package and full implementation there has only been one hotel damaged and that hotel was the park hotel now renamed which we discovered later that a. it's too easy to let tragedy strike and fade from our memories. firefighting experts maintain that sprinkler systems are simply the best line of defense

against the blaze and you are less likely to die in a fire if your resident is equipped with automatic sprinklers. we need to discuss and implement these life saving policies before another tragedy strikes therefore i'm calling with supervisor campos a hearing on residential sprinklers and look forward to working closely with the san francisco fire department and the fire of inspection and of course the community to understand the framework that currently exists in our residential buildings and i'm introducing a resolution today with supervisor mar and supervisor campos calling on the administration to develop a specific plan for the campus so community members can understand the timeline of the

campus building retrofitting and when the campus will open at city college. earlier this year the civic center campus of city college of san francisco closed suddenly due to an emergency seismic safety concern the friday before classes were scheduled to begin and many of the students didn't find out about the closure until they saw the sign posted on the building door. the esl the esl class provided a vital service for many of our large immigrant communities and the campus offered a computer class to the surrounding tenderloin community helping to address

the digital divide and having a central city campus is essential for working class families to help prepare for further training and education. i've heard as many as a third of students were unable to continue their education either because they could not afford the cost of transit to another campus far away or they could not fit the commute time into their work schedules as they balance families and other obligations. it's important that city college do what it can to help our dedicated san francisco residents in receiving the best education possible. they still have not

identified these classrooms and so many students are in limbo a diverse group of community stakeholders including glide church and united players and senior disability action network is calling for the campus to reopen as quickly as possible and to find temporary classes in the neighborhood for all classes disrupted by the by by the closure. >> thank you supervisor kim supervisor mar. >> thank you and thanks to supervisor kim for introducing that and besides her great policy work representing her district i was pleased to see in the chronicle last week that supervisor kim was acknowledged as the top choice of fashion in

the city she's stylish and also well fitting clothing and they point out your shoe collection as well. today is important for a number of us. i call it round 2 against big soda in san francisco. i see dr. john back there and shape up sf and the broad coalitions that have been fighting for our children and a healthier community. and to fight the the the obesity epidemic in our city. as you

know we must do more as a city to reduce access to sugary beverages like sodas and energy drinks and you might know our hospitals are already implementing the phasing out of sugary beverages in the vending machines and they are already acknowledging the at the tipping point and acknowledging the harm and impact on a generation of young people in our city and throughout the country and i also wanted to say that as announced by open troop dot org and we're hoping to see fast food company

and see restaurants really providing more milk in the children's meals and san francisco has is shown we're in the lead and today's legislation is a part of that and also in our city, when we've looked very closely at the data, we know that 1 in 3 san francisco youth will become diabetic in their lifetime -- 1 in 3 and when you look at african-americans and latinos 1 in 2 will develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetimes. our office reported last year that sugary drinks cost us as a city fifty million as a city $50 million and the city governments 26 $26 million a year so there's a negative compact by the over consumption of sugary beverages and we're