Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interim Zoning Controls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors forward interim zoning controls for Corona Heights after widespread resident testimony
Summary
After residents described tree loss, teardown‑and‑replace projects and loss of starter homes, a committee unanimously adopted non‑substantive amendments and forwarded 18‑month interim controls requiring conditional‑use review for very large single‑family expansions in Corona and Corbett Heights.
San Francisco supervisors on Tuesday moved to advance interim zoning controls aimed at slowing a wave of very large single‑family home redevelopments in Corona Heights and Corbett Heights.
Supervisor Scott Wiener, the author, said the 18‑month controls would require a conditional‑use permit for projects that result in a final single‑family home larger than 3,000 square feet and that increase the house size by more than 75 percent (or add units by more than 100 percent). "This is not a moratorium. This is not a ban," Wiener said, adding the rule includes exemptions so modest additions and many family expansions can proceed through existing review paths.
Neighbors and neighborhood organizations packed the committee chamber and gave more than an hour of mostly supportive public testimony. Speakers described cases where small starter homes were being purchased by developers, trees were removed from protected rear yards and multi‑story houses were replacing older, smaller residences. "This legislation will take the most egregious of the proposals and require conditional use," said Kevin Rear, a resident who spoke for Corona Heights neighbors. Jenna Bouley, another resident, framed the measure in equity terms: "San Francisco suffers from an income disparity between rich and poor... If we allow our 900 to 1,500 square foot homes to be redeveloped into 4‑story blocks, there will be no starter homes left."
Several speakers cited specific projects (including work at Ord Court and State Street) and examples of emergency or stop‑work orders, fines for tree removal and planning variances they said had undermined existing rear‑yard protections. Supporters asked the board to use the interim period to produce permanent rules that preserve neighborhood character while allowing appropriate infill.
Wiener distributed minor technical amendments, which the committee described as non‑substantive, and moved to adopt them and forward the item to the full Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Kim seconded the motion; the committee approved the amendments and forwarded the item unanimously.
The committee record included references to planning‑code provisions governing rear‑yard open‑space requirements and to recent local legislation Wiener cited as precedent for permitting in‑law units and other density‑adding approaches. The committee did not vote to adopt permanent code changes; it recommended the interim controls be placed on the full board agenda for further consideration.
