item for the housing element i got a letter saying it's going to be next week. >> yes it will be. >> my name is [inaudible] and coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. we haven't taken this matter up in regard to these homes but i think it's long time coming and i'm -- well, a little surprised that supervisor wiener has [inaudible]. i strongly urge you to pass this today. this is something that the people in the neighborhoods very strongly value. [inaudible] for san francisco neighborhoods are strong and preservation of quality of neighborhood and the preservation of the character of neighborhood and this will be a good start in that regard. but hello -- we in the other parts

of the city also want protection too because monster homes are not just in corona heights. it's already started and going on for a number of years throughout san francisco, so i hope that the supervisors take this very seriously, and will support this and eventually expand it to other parts of the city. thank you. >> thank you very much. john. >> thank you. i am also with the san francisco bay area renters federation. i think i wanted to sum up some of our concerns that we have been discussing on our online forums. the first concern is will this spread to every neighborhood in san francisco now being titled to legislation to preserve their neighborhood and visual and economic character? we think this could be an impediment to adding the housing that we need

in the future. we should think about the controls we are using to keep giant homes out could be used to keep poor people out. not only does this legislation -- not only this legislation but existing law in zoning do keep poor people out of the neighborhood in question. no one without a massive income could afford to buy or rent in the area without the current legislation and i say this with respect to the people who are neighbors there. you guys moved in and bought your houses 30 years ago and you moved out of the middle class because of the appreciation of the houses in many cases. okay. as a basic issue of fairness a lot of other neighborhoods are being asked to take things out of character for those neighborhoods. they're not generally as white or miss class as your neighborhood or up ermiddle class as your neighborhood. i understand the opposition to big

homes. that is the motivation here but a fenced off yard is not the equivalent of open space. i upon skip that part. if economic diversity is the goal of the legislation and residents support affordable housing in the neighborhood as some said let's add additional protections that allow multi-family exemptions and increase density and remove the requirements and high percentage for affordable developments. all neighborhoods -- not just other neighborhoods in the eastern side -- [inaudible] side of the city -- >> next speaker is hector martienez. followed by richard goldman followed by fred bovey followed by milliony palmer. >> hello i live on state street. obviously i am opposed to the monster homes. the argument that you need certain

amount of space to raise a family i think is misleading. i have two young children, one and three years old, and we live in a home that is less than half what is proposed for these homes and that is more than enough space so this whole argument that more space for the family is completely misleading. the other issue that i would like to raise is we went through this process with a proposal at fifty three state street at the planning commission and i felt as far as the planning department and the commission there was no importance placed on affordability and that's the big issue here. it's not simply about they're not wanting more homes. we want existing afford annual homes to stay or be built. these are monster homes. i don't think anyone can afford these homes unless you're in the upper strata as far as income

and that is very few and between so obviously i support this legislation and i encourage that further legislation include all of state street and the surrounding areas and wherever else there is concern in the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. my name is richard goldman and my wife and i live on state street under this area in consideration. i want to thank supervisor wiener for addressing this problem. as mentioned this legislation is a reasonable approach allowing some new development but giving us time to take a closer look at the rapid growth in the neighborhood and allowing for input from the neighborhood. our neighborhood has many through lots with open space on one end and the housing on the other and it's something that gives a unique character to our neighborhood as having this much open space and visibility to

the neighbors opposed to the midblock open spaces and this is something that many of the neighbors have said already and want to preserve. i just want to bring up one other -- not constituent but one other group that is interested in preserving the tree and it is open space. two other projects that have been part of this the impetus for this emergency legislation currently have open space in the backyard and one has significant trees that the developer didn't call significant and we pointed that out and the planning commission said they have to save the trees now and the corona heights parrots if we could have the projector please. the parrots are in there. we can see one, two, the different parrots up there and closer look where we can seat parrots here and here and here, and these are another group that would very much appreciate being able to

keep the open space in the neighborhood so i ask that the committee support this legislation and recommend approval by the full board. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. fred and then mitzy. >> hi i am fred and here on behalf of corona heights park and i want to commend you supervisor wiener for introducing this interim legislation. i moved on to ord court in 1985 and my late partner and i bought a place on state street in 2000 and i have the pleasure of living across the street from the big development on state street by the park right now. it's a pattern. it's not just our neighborhood but it's a pattern as people have been mentioning all over the city where developers come in and take what they need and don't give anything back to the

neighborhood, and the reason corona hites is so unique is that there are multi-unit dwellings and families living here. i have seen it most of my life and it's one of the reasons people want to live in san francisco. if we destroy that we destroy the impetus for san francisco being a place to live and work. we have seen housing bubbles come and go and once this bubble breaks are we going to be left with the shattered remnants of what was once a wonderful unique neighborhood? it's a decision that we as the voters need to keep in our hands. i want to thank all of my friends and neighbors from the neighborhood for coming out today and encourage you to look at the ordinance once it's up to make sure that we all still have a voice in what goes on in our neighborhood. thanks again. >> thank you very much.

milliony followed biany. >> good afternoon. i live at upper terrace across the street from a proposed project at two seventy one and 273 upper teracy. thank you supervisor wiener for bringing this matter to everyone's attention. we and mount olympus are the last of the groups affected by this mega construction. nothing has started yet. there are two small modest structures across the street from me that were purchased by a developer for $4 million and the property goes down to roosevelt so it's pie shaped slope and the current proposal is to build two houses on upper terrace. three houses down below. the houses are to be between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet each and the ruler

is rule -- rumor there will be a lap pool and elevator for cars. >> >> now, this is so out of character for our neighborhood. mount o lump us used to be the geographic center of the city but now we're on the ridge trail and have a lot of hikers that come up there. most people don't know we exist because it's a dead end street. the street is so narrow people think it's a one way and we regularly pullover for each other, so there is a lot of congestion. there are more and more delivery trucks all the time with amazon and the delivery services of your vegetables and so forth, so we're already experiencing a huge influx of traffic, and i can only shutter at what this huge construction project --

the other thing i want to mention the woman next door has yet to be contacted from the developer. >> thank you very much. >> hi there. i amany and live in an adjacent neighborhood and member of the bay renters association and i am doing this on behalf of right-handal loads and the email sent. i am curious about the process and whether the legislation would make the process for approvals smoother or difficult for expansion projects. you said turning normal size homes into mega homes is not adding new housing. i have friends living in a cohousing arrangement that were mega homes whether it's in law units or more bedrooms the end result is density and more housing. especially as proponents of the large

development and it's important to stress that in fills should happen everywhere and not confined to certain neighborhoods. otherwise what we're talking about is not in my backyard but over there where other people live, the mission instead of corona heights and i am concerned that conditional use is better and not making the expansion projects easier. in fact i think the implication is they make it harder and not ard adding new housing. which one is it? i can't follow the message. >> thank you very much. now if there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item number one please come up. please come up. please come to the microphone. >> i live on state street. i have a building there that is two small apartments total 700

square feet each, and i am so proud of supervisor wiener. i actually have not been supportive of him in the past but when i saw this legislation i was like you wo this guy's got my vote. i am so proud of my neighbors who have gradually come together to start posing these projects going in. i am at the dog park with my dog rock get watching the developers clear cutting the old growth trees down right in the view of the dog park? who is responsible for protecting these trees? who is responsible for protecting the parrots? if you're going to give variances let's give them to studio apartments and one bedroom apartments. i mean who is buying these homes? i don't hear anyone demanding trophy homes in the neighborhood. let's build trophy homes. no, i

go to all of the meetings and i don't hear anyone supporting this. i hear people concerned that the neighborhood is being concerned, that the character of the neighborhood is destroyed, the environment is destroyed. this is not affordable housing. this is housing for people outside of the neighborhood. if we're going to build -- give variances for buildings let's give them for apartment buildings that have studio apartments. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am mark riser and have been a resident in the neighborhood since 1995 and a property owner and own -- >> mark, come on i know you have a stronger voice than that. >> i want to strongly support supervisor wiener's legislation understanding it's not the final answer. it will help us reach a carefully considered solution to this and balance all of the interests and have quality in the work done by supervisor wiener's office that we will get to that point. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is jane whitaker. i live directly across the street from the building that is being built there. i have lived in the neighborhood since 1961. so i have seen a lot of changes, and i just want to say that i am just here to give some history. the house -- i live the at 187 and the house next to me was built up on roosevelt way because at that particular time the lots couldn't be more than 25 by 75 feet. since there's only 125 feet up to roosevelt way from state street you could only put one house on the top or one on the bottom. that's why that space is there, so when the fellow changed at 182 when he built up on roosevelt way and got a variance to build autopsy

the way down to. >> >> >> build all the way down to state street was in the 60's and 70's. i knew it was going to come. thank goodness it took this many years to get here but hopefully we can stop it. that's all i have to say. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i have been in the neighborhood 39 years right now on 17th street abutting my property to the east side was a single family home under 1,000 square feet. it's replaced by five units and over 10,000 square feet. on the west side was open space and two victorian flats and a single family home besides that and 33 condominiums were put into that space so i am being blocked in. i admire all of the people that have come to speak here today and i hope you

give them your consideration for all the time and effort they have put and taken out of their lives to speak up here, and i want to thank you and supervisor wiener for this resolution. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. you as an individual can only speak for one person. if you like you can forward your email so it's part of this board file. >> even though i had 45 seconds left on my last one you. >> walked away. i'm sorry. >> okay. >> any other member of the public to speak on item number one? item number one? come on before i close public comment. >> if i speak too loud, too strongly and this is my importance -- [inaudible] something. good evening.

[inaudible] good evening jane kim. [inaudible] i met scott wiener and remind me -- . [inaudible] format -- detached. -- [inaudible] spirit release -- [inaudible] bring closeness to all evil -- [inaudible] highest -- only -- [inaudible] can one be students of good standing. in order to be in good standing of students

be in good security. in order to be in good security and good [inaudible] wisdom and true knowing of being in good reasoning of origin or wisdom can -- [inaudible] matters. [inaudible] progress. [inaudible] require good management -- [inaudible] good knowing and understanding and [inaudible] self wellness and [inaudible] -- >> okay. thank you. anyone else want to speak to item number one? okay. public comment is going to be closed. [gavel] i want to just say a couple of

comments. i appreciate you guys -- residents coming out and engaging on this level and i want to echo some of the brief remarks that i heard from folks commenting is that the feeling this pressure, anxiety you're feeling i want to assure you it's also happening in other parts of the city. my constituents in potrero hill are dealing with the same issues as well as visitation valley. oftentimes they hear from neighbors that the proposed expansion for homes it's too large, out of scope or feel with the scope or neighborhood. these things i hear often and i want to commend supervisor wiener for the interim controls and unfortunate but it seems it's one of the only tools that we have at our disposal to help correct some of the aggressive development that has been

happening so supervisor wiener i am sure you have comments. >> thank you madam chair and thank you for the remarks. a few thank yous and thank my office for doing a lot of work and working with the neighbors and working with the planning department to put together these controls. i always want to thank the gentleman who showed the photos of the paron thes -- paron -- parrots and i had no idea they were there and i want to thank the neighborhood. i knew there was going to be a turnout today. i didn't realize how many people would come out and at by and large i haven't seen these people before at city hall. there are some people that come to city hall a lot advocating and not a judgment

and they're terrific people advocating on issues and these people are not usually here in this building but are here because they care deeply about their neighborhood. one remark we heard over and over again is we're not opposed to development that we understand we need more housing in the city, but that creating particularly massive single family homes while having an impact on the neighborhood that isn't addressing the housing needs. i want to say to the representative of the bay areas renters federation who are here today a lot of respect for the organization and i am happy there is an organization that is actively advocating for creating more housing in san francisco because for the future of our city and for the people who are here now for the young people who are coming here for people who grew up here and leave and want to come back and can't find a place to live and for future generations of the people that come to san francisco and the

hallmark of people welcoming the new people coming here we need enough housing to house those people but i want to say i don't agree with the implication that this neighborhood and the people who are coming out today and who have been advocating for the legislation are somehow anymore bees and. >> >> saying build elsewhere and don't change our neighborhood. that's not what i heard today and have been hearing and speak with many of the neighbors. i will just note for those aren't familiar with the geography here that a mere three blocks from this boundary we hit castro and market where we begin to see approved or already built development starting at castro and market heading up with thousand units of housing, so this area is not some sort of isolated area. it's right on top of the upper market

neighborhood which is absorbing a significant amount of new housing and the people that came today these folks were not out fighting any of that development. last year as i mentioned at the beginning we authored the castro in law legislation that affects the bulk of our neighborhood. i don't recall a single neighbor coming out and opposing that legislation. in fact the neighborhood associations in the area -- the same ones supporting this legislation all came out in support of the in law unit legislation because they knew and they know that we do need new housing and adding in law units into the existing envelope of buildings is a terrific and more affordable way of doing that. no one advocated to me in the interim controls have some sort of lock down where we prevent people from adding to their homes or building new

units. no one took that position. instead everyone agreed or i think largely agreed with the flexible approach that we take which allows for significant additions without going into the real mega home territory, and even then it's not a ban. it simply requires a conditional use. in deed the gentleman that spoke near the end who talked about if you grant variances for large buildings at least have multi-unit buildings which is exactly what housing advocates have been advocating for building a multi-housing unit is different and adds housing opposed to turning a 1200 or 1400 square feet home into a 5,000 square feet home. yes theoretically in the future it could be a co-housing situation but largely they're not co-housing and generally not

creating new housing. i also just want to note in terms of the conditional use process this is a process that already applies to an enormous amount of housing in san francisco. in fact whether it's 16th and mission or any -- pretty much any building on market street is required to get a conditional use because we recognize we want the housing but when you're talking about adding large buildings and having that public process is invaluable and in fact this neighborhood has embraced that development, has not opposed any of the buildings that went up along market street has not used the conditional use process to argue for tiny buildings or fewer units, but used the process to try to negotiate for things like -- for example, demanding on site affordable housing or making sure that the design is a good design and one that is a good urban design, so this

neighborhood i just want to really dispel what we have been hearing from some that this neighborhood is somewhat a "not in my backyard don't dare do something in my backyard do it in the mission" and that is false. this neighborhood is continuing to absorb more density but also wants to retain what is amazing about this neighborhood which is the absolute, the beauty, the green space, and you can have both. you can create housing which i have advocated for while respecting the fabric of neighborhoods and that is an important balance for us to always keep in mind so colleagues i do have amendments which i distributed. these are not substantive amendments. they largely provide greater more detailed guidance to the planning commission when they consider projects under certain circumstances so i would make a

motion to adopt the amendments and make a further motion to forward item 1 to the full board as a committee report with positive recommendation. >> supervisor kim. >> i was just going to second the amendment. >> okay. >> and make a motion to move forward with the recommendation of the committee report. >> okay. so a motion has been made by supervisor wiener. seconded by supervisor kim and this passailaigues unanimously. >> >> [applause] >> >> okay. we're going to go on to item number two, madam clerk can you please call number two. >> item two say resolution encouraging the san francisco municipal transportation agency. >> thank you very much. supervisor wiener is the author

of this item. supervisor wiener is the author of item number two. >> great. thank you very much madam chair for agendizing this item as well. colleagues today before us is a resolution regarding our commuter pilot program and requesting that the mta in issuing permits for this program consider the existence or lack thereof of labor harmony. colleagues our commuter shuttle program has proven to be a great way of keeping cars off of the streets and reduce the greenhouse gas footprint. as a result of the employee shuttles workers in san francisco and commute to outside or inside the city and who

would otherwise own and drive private automobiles are now able to live car free getting us one step closer to the transit first city we want to be, but while most of the conversations about these shuttles focused on those riding the buses we wanted to discuss the people driving these vehicles. the shuttles are operated with private companies that contract with them. drivers work for the shuttle operators and not for one of the big companies here in the city. the drivers are behind the wheel for eight hours a day and commutes and stand by time of four, six hours between shifts. these stand by times are often unpaid and because the drivers may live in other parts of the bay area they don't have the option of going home during these stand by times. they usually have to wait in the bus in the mi