resolution yet because this is a last minute announcement to our group what i would like to say is i thank supervisor wiener for allowing his constituents to bring forward this piece of legislation because planning commission has many ordinances and it's not just that rh-2s are supposed to have 45% rear yard. to planning credit and i am not going against anything here believe me it's about facts and 45% is rh-2 however in the code in rear yards and talks about exception to the rules and that creates all of the various pop outs that negate the open space and rear yards so you have to dig down into the legislation because i am always into the weeds. i think that neighborhoods are going to have

to approach this very carefully because of various loopholes as supervisor wiener mentioned. there are loopholes and that includes building inspection department and what they are allowed to do, so just as a warning this is great. that you have this heard before this committee today because many other residential neighborhoods are going to be affected with neighborhood character and this needs to be taken on a serious level throughout the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker michael morris. >> my name is michael morris. i have been a resident on state street since 1978. state street is a narrow widening street and the longest block in san francisco and usually parking on both sides of the street. in a recent year i noticed a big increase on the traffic on the

street and loring of the quality of the driving on the street. i now see that just up the street where there is a sharp bend there is a multi-unit apartment block going up with garages opening right on to the street where there's a bend. therefore i am glad to see that some legislation is going to be introduced which will control -- look at all aspects of the development and try to control the character and preserve the kaish of the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. next speaker please. michael morris are you up? not here. okay. sonia straus. i have a long stack of speaking cards. you can speak to the item afterwards. sonia straus. >> hi. there's some question about whether this legislation will stop housing or not.

we've already heard neighbors mention specific projects. if neighbors felt they already had the level of control that they want over their neighborhood we would not be here. we also hear a lot of anxiety. like i hear the word "arksz larm" a lot. definitely the neighborhood is alarmed. everyone in san francisco are alarmed. if we get to 30,000 units by 2020 that means 5,000 units a year and more than we have done in the last 20 years. it's going to be hard for every neighborhood. we have heard people asking for this legislation to be extended which means that even if once it's passed here it could reduce the uncertainty of the process. the uncertainty of whether it will spread to other neighborhoods has its own level of uncertainty of the process. i ask my

members of the sf renters barriers association it's not just enough to ask for development in other areas and really achieving our goal how we act in a drought requires a personal commitment on every person's part to realize that there's going to be stuff happening they're not comfortable with. like nobody is comfortable with the face pace of -- fast pace of development in san francisco or victory gardens or drought relief or if you think it's small and doesn't make a difference every little bit counts and to be comfortable with the change we're under going is really the only way forward. i have a letter from somebody else. can i read it? >> sure. >> because i am out of my time. >> then no. sorry. >> it's okay. i mean it's from someone at work.

>> but if you want to forward it -- if you want to email it i will look at it. >> michael morris. all right. cool. eric you're up. sue vaughn you're next. leslie collij. her roashy -- i can't read the last name. >> i'm not sure to speak on this matter. i am here to speak on the second item. >> thank you very much. looks like erica is speaking on the next item. leslie. >> good afternoon the i am leslie and live on cobet off and since 1977 and the owners of a house that was -- (low audio) and had occupants so 300 feet seems adequate for. >> >> 3,000 feet seems adequate

for one family and i appreciate the legislation coming forward and i thank supervisor wiener and hope you approve it. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> before i start a point of order. the third 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