>> we will be evaluating properties that were built

on before 1974, more than 45 years old, and that age is based upon generally the length of time that a survey takes from start to finish. so it kind of gives us that five years before the properties become 50 years that five years before the to complete the survey and to make the assessment. and we will be evaluating for national regis sterter and california register. we are intending to do the survey field work in the evaluations in-house, with staff rather than consultants. a survey advisory group, which we intend to have two tiers, a core group that would stay with the life of the project that would consist of members of the historic preservation, advocacy groups, and city and

family, and then a rotating advisory group that would have neighborhood organizations or members of the public that would change as we move through each phase so that the advisory group that we have for that phase is specific to that geography. obviously the historic preservation commission will be providing their guidance and adopting findings. we have a technical support from the getty conservation institute, and, obviously, the public is a very important piece of the team as well. and we will be including them in focus groups as we develop the methodology as well as the cultural heritage methodology, which we are embarking on an r.s.p. for, and then we will fold it into the over all survey methodology.

so as we look at this task, we are thinking about how we would phase it because it is obviously an undertaking that you can't just go out and, you know, look at everything at once. we have 80 to 100,000 properties that we believe we need to survey. and some of the variables that we thought about for phasing are physical hazards, so disaster preparedness focus, and neighborhoods and communities that are underrepresented in our preservation programs to date, development pressures, and this could be a timely useful development tool, and an age of building stock. so the maps on this slide are -- show some of the water hazards and liquefaction zones that are some of the -- the physical hazards we've been looking at. these maps, we've been

looking at the office of resiliency to coordinate and make sure we're looking at the same type of hazards that they are. and this map, although this isn't the heaviest weight of the variables we're considering, this map shows the age of the building stock and its distribution across the city. in general, it kind of reflects -- okay. ohoh, okay. the buildings are located in the center of the city, and also throughout. earthquake is concentrated in southeast and in neighborhoods south and east of downtown. and subsequent development periods generally slant out to the south and west with infill from later periods. so the map on this slide represents what we are

proposing as our phasing, although it would still need to be refined based on methodology and input from our outreach process. right now we have proposed that phase 1 would be the area in pink. the areas of phase 1 were selected because they include areas of the city most at risk from the hazards of water and liquefaction. and they include bay view, an area with high physical hazards, and that is also generally lacking in representation in the preservation programs. and then this slide looks at our proposed budget on schedule. so based on our current fiscal year 1920 budget proposal, we are estimating that we would have about 3.15 s.t.e. to

dedicate, and based on that and the number of properties we need to look at, it would take roughly six years to complete. and the various options, options one and two, and each increase the amount of f.t.e. dedicated and half, or nearly half, the amount of time that the effort would take. and then this slide is sort of the -- some of the next steps. we will be presenting this to the land use committee of the board on the 22nd. we're doing briefings with the board members as they request them, and we'll be going back to the h.p.c. in may for an update as well. and that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you, ms. lavalle. do we have any public comment on this?

>> good afternoon president milguard and commissioners. i'm really pleased to be here. and i'm here to speak to the urgency and the importance of this survey. i'm aaron hyland, and i'm the president of the historic preservation commission. i have a letter for the file. we didn't get this prepared ahead of time. i've been here about 27 years, and every year we've talked about the need to get our city surveyed. and, um, when i first arrived, san francisco was head of the game. we were the city that everyone looked for to have lessons learned on how we treat our historic resources. our preservation movement was born out of the 1950s and '60s massive

redevelopment and destruction of the western edition. in 1971, heritage was created. '76, the intensive downtown survey was completed, which led to the michael corbet book in 1979, "splendid survivors." at that point we were at the top of our game. everybody was looking at us and what we were doing. fast forward to 2002, and some very different things were happen here and in los angeles. in rancho mirage, a very beautiful house that was completely restored and completely intact was demolished. this drove mid-century people in l.a. crazy, and it launched the preservation movement in l.a. however, here in san francisco, 2002, we were just adopting the market

mocktavia plan, and we were arguing how, when, and why we would need a city-wide survey. we did make some progress. we surveyed some areas in mission dolores, japan town, and between 2008 and 2013, a small portion of the triangle was survived, and then the dibos triangle was created, but that took five years. meanwhile, in los angeles, from 2010 to 2017, thanks to some funding from the getty, they surveyed the entire city. almost 900,000 parcels. 500 square miles of property in seven years. still today in san francisco, we've only surveyed 20%, and no large focused effort. these are all individual, project-driven efforts. so it is time. it is time we need to get

this survey done. we need to get it done yesterday. why? because it's not just about protecting our historic resources, but it is about identifying what is not historic. which, based on the data from the l.a. survey, and it's been confirmed with our own limited data, that will be half the city. more than half the properties surveyed are not historic. but because we haven't done the survey, every individual project that comes before us has to go through this process of evaluating it. that takes about a year and a half to two years, delaying the project from moving forward. so currently with current resources, it will take between six and seven years to complete our survey. [buzzer] >> what i'm asking is for your support to get this done in half that time. we're currently trying to

break free the post-entitlement projects. mayor breed is really pushing to get those post-entitlement projects moving. if we don't get this survey done, when those projects are done, we'll have a backlog on pre-entitlement. what we're asking is for you to join us. we'll be speaking with the mayor and each of the supervisors, and we want to increase the funding. we've had a lot of conversations about this. there is the mayor's directive of not adding additional staff head count, but this is really important. it will save us time now, and it will save us money later. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you, commissioner. next speaker, please. >> i saw the file for the historic preservation hearing, and i wanted to see a map of nowe valley,

but i couldn't make it big. and i called mr. webster, and he made me a map. for $75 and you can have one to. these are the boundaries of nowe valley, not mine. and as you can see, there is a lot of blue and green and light green. and all of that is world war ii, and all of the blue is pre-1906, and this is your information. and i have a p.t. f., i can send you, and it's all old redwood, and i think because of the number of older buildings in many portions of nowe valley, should be considered an historic district. and as you know,

historically, nowe valley was part of the mission. my neighbor who lived on nmy street always told people she lived in the mission. nowe valley is an older neighborhood on the east side of the city. some of the blocks with the john an anderson homes are already potential historic buildings. six homes behind me have been designated as a potential historic district because the contractor was the same contractor as this building. while not all of the blocks in nowe valley may be homogeneous, older east side neighborhoods are infilled, and i think this development pattern should be looked at a plus and not a minus because it tells the story of the neighborhood and the city. for example, my lot is 17b on the block. originally 17 was one large lot of nearly

80 feet in width. a house is built in 1932 on 17a. and my house was built in 1941 as part of the post-war bloom. the resource study should receive a lot of support and should be completed as quickly as possible. i like the two and a half years thing, even faster. [buzzer] >> if the staff wants some pesky volunteers in various neighborhoods to help out, that is a good thing. all of this housing seems like it could be open for simple remodels and that's a better way to preserve all of this housing. thank you very much. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> i've been on my bull bully

pulpit on surveys for quite sometime. i think given what we've got coming out of sacramento, it is time we actually get really serious. in a department of 270 people, whether they're there or not hired yet or they've left or whatever, we need to really figure this out. if you look across the bills, sb50 points to sequel in terms of the historic preservation, and the density bonus says no state or federal law can be broken. the housing accountability act points to sequa, and the acts you have to be listed on the national are state register. and sb4 will probably merge with sb5050 -- it states you have to be listed on the national state or local.

and then sb330, which i mentioned before, had required that the level of historisity needs to bemony at time of application. if you take that and go, oh, we only surveyed 20% of the city, and i come in on a parcel or a building that is in the 80%, well, what's going to happen to it? this is the urgency. the development pressure is now becoming so great that i really don't think six and a half years is -- we don't have six and a half years to do this. i think we should condense it as much as we can. the two and a half years i intended at the h.p.c. building -- it's only adding a couple of interns and a couple of positions. to that end, president hyland and i went and met with sandra fewer's office on getting additional money for these couple of survey people.

and i mentioned that when we had lunch. and we're slated to talk were you each one owith each one supervisors, and we talked with justin true, who is trying to get housing sped up. we have this thing called the pre-entitlements, and i think we're on to something. for not a lot of money, we could probably get a big bang for our buck and increase housing production because we won't be pecking, like a kitchechicken does. if l.a. can do it with 900,000 units, we can do it. >> chairman: thank you. commissioner moore. >> couldn't be more clear that what you summarized is essential and hits in detail on what i strongly support. thank you for taking it forward. thank you, commissioner hyland, and thank you to the department. this is, i think, really

the alarm clock for us to strongly support the speeding of and finding resources to shorten the study. make our own work easier relative to p.r., and costly building by building investigation of background. i'm in strong support of this being supported for additional funding or whatever else can be mustered here. >> chairwoman: thank you. so i also support the shortened timeline. but i have some comments and a question for you. my first comment is, i'm a really big fan of wikapedia. i think it is the best thing since sliced bread. and that is because it is sort of democraticsized information. and i get people who are very per snic persnickety about

accuracy. i had my own experience. i owned a property that was on the market, octavia corridor, when the historic survey was done. and the property was very historic. the unit at the bottom was once owned by the head of the longshoreman's union. when the strike happened, and all of the meetings happened in that place, and when the survey was done, none of that was in the survey. and so i knew this because i bought the property from, you know, the guy. and, you know, i think there is -- you know, just being on this commission, the laundromat that was at issue with mr. tilman's property. there was a whole wealth of information among the o.g.s and the mission about what had happened there, but none of that was picked up by

professional folks. and so i am just wondering, in both terms of cost-efficient see and alscy andcapturing all of that l history of how we use this space, if we can come up with a process that is a little more robust than just getting a couple of volunteers on a saturday to come to a focus group. is there a way that we can use technology to en volve invoe the public in the survey, and thus also make it faster and get more done? >> so i touched on it very briefly in the presentation, but as i mentioned, we are in the process of hiring a consultant to help us develop a cultural heritage asset, tangible and intangible assets methodology, and one of the big pieces we hope to get out of that is to get at exactly what you're talking about. to get at the social and cultural histories that

are out there and the people that are out there that are aware of them, but they're not something you can notice as you walk along the sidewalk, necessarily. so to get at those and to get at how we can do sort of better crowd-sourcing of that information and use the technologies that are available to do that and to collect that information, and to interact in a more substantive way with the public, and provide them opportunities to tell us about what they know about the place that they live, what is important about the neighborhood that they come from, and what they remember about that corner store, etc. one of the reasons that we are using our data base system is it provides a lot of flexibility and opportunities for different types of middle information. you can do a video. you can make a recording.

and you can upload that and have it link to an actual property. and so we definitely see that concern and we also, you know, want to get at those histories and get at those significant cultural spaces that we -- that sometimes survey doesn't do a good job at getting at. and also figure out a time-efficient and resource-efficient way to collect all of that important data. >> that's excellent. so i just had one small question. can you put up the phasing. there are areas of grey, and is that because it has already been surveyed? >> any area of grey are areas that have already been surveyed. >> thank you so much. >> chairwoman:

commissioner tilus? >> i defer to him. >> i was involved in the octavia survey, and we didn't rezone the neighborhood before we understood what we were rezoning, which makes logical sense. we're rezoning, but we advantaghaven't surveyed yet, which is backwards. this is the market octavia area, and identify historic buildings, and there are about 12 of them. some of these other ones, debose triangle, and i'm working to raise the money to complete the survey. there is algon park reconstruction -- how many of these districts have been identified in the city that haven't been listed on the california registry yet? eligible districts.

do we know that? >> i don't have that number off the top of my head. yes and no. within the surveys, we generally identify eligibility for california register or national register, right? so we do have, within survey areas, the ability to sort of map where those findings have occurred. and the results of those have actually changed the category of those properties from "b" to "a" or "c." but then we also have california register-eligible districts that have been found through other processes, and the reason we didn't create a map of those california-register- eligib california-register-eligib lregister-eligible properties because the

sequa side is very disifort. different. we didn't want it to be confusing with the districts we have already adopted. but, yes, there are numerous potentially eligible districts that have been identified through different review processes that exist in the city. that data is generally used for when we review projects and permits. and then some of those determinations then get added to the landmark designation work program. >> so i think the concern i have is, i look at, say, sb4, and the requirement is you have to be listed. and we have i don't know how many -- what does it take -- all of the work has been done. we kind of have to do the case work and take it to the state preservation officer and have a hearing and they decide on it?

we're like at the five yard line, and can we get these over the line first? >> as i said in the presentation, survey is just like the very first step towards designation. there is generally multiple other steps involved, including additional documentation that usually needs to occur. that said, i don't know exactly -- it would be a different -- we would have to have a policy determination to sort of say we're going to take these districts and move them in these particular ways for destination. >> if i may, i think what i also heard you say, pilar -- correct me if i'm wrong, perhaps the information we have obtained for the unmapped districts is not quite as rigorous as what we would have in a survey process. is that correct? >> for most of our seque

eligibility properties, yes, that is the case. we haven't, to date, looked at every property within that particular boundary, which is what a survey is intended to do. a survey only finds something eligible, and then it has to go through the political steps of designation. >> there are so many different ways to cut this phasing plan. i've had several conversations with staff about it. and one cut is staff is proposing areas that have been underserved in the past in areas that are prone to disasters, because post-disaster environment, this is going to be a very big issue. another way to cut it is to look at areas under development. and another way is to look at areas, as you point out, that have a certain amount of information and are ready. there are so many different ways to cut the phasing plan. the proposal you have in front of you is one of them. i think the preservation

commissioner supports this approach. but -- depending on the funding, maybe there is a way we could do a little bit of what you talk about as well, and we can certainly have that conversation. >> ite i'm sorry, i should also point out doing this survey and going through this phasing process, in no rules out neighborhood surveys, and we have several of those under way and we'll be reviewing and processing them in parallel -- >> my neighborhood is doing it on our own, and working with tim frye, and raising the money ourselves. lastly, you required something to measure the survey against, which is a context statement? correct? >> correct. >> the ones that were identified, like the jesse street -- >> the entirety of the marketplace has an context statement associated with it, as well as most of the eastern neighborhood

surveys that were done. some of our older surveys don't necessarily have a context statement. >> mission dolores did a survey, and eureka valley history a statement -- really understanding the breath of what we have already done would really be helpful. >> that's what we're trying to wrap our heads around as well. >> and how we would pull the right leverage to get the most out of it is really where we're coming from. i think we all kind of agree that's a good way to go. the shorter, the better. if we have to go fight for more money, director, we'll fight. >> chairwoman: commissioner hilus. >> here is a presentation of what has already been done. is that the o.m.i.? >> yeah. >> when was that done? >> i was afraid someone

would ask a question like that. i believe it was mid-'90s. >> and what instigated that? >> i believe it was community-sponsored. >> okay. >> just on the phases, too, i'm sure this went through a lot of debate, but i was surprised to see kind of the marina fisherman's wharf and face phase 1. and i lean more to those areas that have been underrepresented in the kind of preservation process, as well as development pressures. you would have thought glen park and the excellsior would have scored higher. again, i'm in favor of getting more done sooner, but can you elaborate on that more.

especially the excelsior. >> the primary for the initial passes of phases, the inclusion of the marina was basically focused a lot on the physical hazards. and those particular areas, the manner n marina and y view that the highest hazards when you overlay liquefaction and water-related flooding issues. but, yeah, like we said, there are a lot of ways you could cut this. one of the other things is glen park is actually in the process of doing their neighborhood community-respond sordsponsored survey. so in order not to duplicate. >> that would be my only comment, to try to move those -- i just feel that

is more important than the marina, which is kind of well-established. but i'm sure a lot has gone into that thinking. >> but we're here to collect your thoughts as well. >> yeah, that would be my thought. >> chairwoman: commissioner moore. >> i have a question for commissioner hiland, please. >> looking at resources, i wanted to basically quickly comment on identifying other resources that people haven't thought about. when i went to architectural school in germany, which has a lot of historic resources, being a country that is slightly older than the u.s., as architectural students, we actually, for one course, needed to choose an historic building. i chose, as four other students, a moted castle built in the 11th century and it was not

surveyed. weren't e diand we did that forl credit. i'm wondering as to whether or not given berkeley nearby and other art schools and other architectural programs, to tap into that resource where students, for credit, participate and learn about historic preservation, how to look at neighborhoods and buildings. i just want to let that be a discussion perhaps in your commission. at this moment it is finding how to tie the swings and the knots together on how to make this happen earlier, and not only asking for money, money, but to find how other people can participate. >> that's a great idea. i believe we're working with u.s.c. and other similar-type efforts. >> i just wanted to throw that out as a thought. >> okay. >> chairwoman: thank you.

>> seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to item 16, for case number 2018-01554cua. this is for authorization. >> good afternoon president melguard and commissioners. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization for the subdivision of an existing lot currently containing a single-family home, four lots, two of which will be sub standard lots. the proposal will individually develop two of the proposed four lots

for a total of three single-family homes. one lot will remain vacant. the project site is 7,346 square foot property located on the west side of norhock street, within the arch 1 and high end district. and within the outer mission neighborhood. the media neighborhood includes one to three-story single-family homes. the item before you is required by planning code section 121 for the subdivision of an existing lot into two new lots. prior to the listed project, the project sponsor thought to divide the lot into four conforming lots, and develop each lot with single-family homes. the existing building was proposed to be demolished. however, during the

notification, section 311, a discretionary -- regarding the demolition of an existing single-family home and the removal of an existing redwood tree located at the subject property. upon filing this request, discussions were had. ultimately, a compromise was reached for both parties, which preserved both the existing unit and the aged redwood tree at the subject property. the reached compromise was under the conditional use application. to date, the department has not received any correspondence in opposition of the project. the department has received 20 correspondents in support of the project. members of the public state the applicant and project's ability to satisfy previously raised neighborhood concerns. the department recommends

approval with conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons: the department finds the project is on balance and consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable requirement of the zoning code. it will exercise the currently underutilized law, with the potential of a third unit to be developed at the proposed vacant lot. the project will provide a use compatible with the zoning district, and construct buildings that are compatible in size, density, height, and architectural characteristics of the neighborhood. it will not displace any residential tenants at the subject property or remove any rent-controlled or affordable housing. this concludes the presentation. >> chairwoman: thank you. we will now hear from the project's sponsor.

>> i'm technically-challenged, commissioner. i think it is there, can you put it on the screen. >> there we go. >> can we make it bigger? >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is tony pontlioni. and we're the project

architects. i would like to walk through the project with you. the project is located at the corner of northwest -- sorry, northwest corner of nordoff. nordoff is to the left, and stillings is to the right. the proposed project is to subdivide the lot into four smaller lots. this is an aerial view of the site. you see the house in the middle of the photograph there. the lot is about 7,346 square feet. and we're essentially surrounded by single-family homes. this is looking at the house on the corner, 95 nordoff, and some of our neighbors surrounding us. nordoff street is to the

left, and stillings to the right. nordoff is a lesser slope. this is looking at nordoff, our house, and the property is between the pink home on the left and our existing home on the right. this is stillings street. our house is to the left, and there is a large redwood tree and open space behind our house, our property, and then the neighbor's. this is the existing site plan currently. the single-family home will be maintained. there is a redwood tree right behind it we're also maintaining. we've had some various meetings with the neighborhood neighbors, and as you mentioned, the previous historic presentation that you had, some of the neighbors felt

this was an historic property. we had an historic resource evaluation done. they didn't find that, but we're saving it. we're restoring it, and we're preserving it. this is the proposed subdivision. so the house is at the corner -- we would have to modify it a little bit. it is a little too wide. there is a wrap-around porch that needs to be removed on the side, and the rear needs to also be reduced in size. the reason we're here today is the conditional use application. the lot on the corner would be 24 feet wide instead of the required 25 feet wide, and we have 1501 square feet rather than the 1750 that we need. the lot to the left, it will be a vacant lot. we're not proposing to build on that at this time. we're proposing to sell it. the other two lots facing nordoff, those are what

we're proposing to build, also. in terms of the conditional use application, 89 nordoff, the lot at the become is only 24 feet wide, and the code requires it to be 25 feet. those are the conditional use requests. >> this is the site plan for the house at the corner. and, again, as i mentioned, we have to reduce the size somewhat. we're also proposing an addition at the rear. the tree, again, will remain. by doing this, we're allowed to have two lots facing nordoff for two new homes. this is the plan for the existing house. it has a one-car garage, a bedroom on the basement level, living, dining, and kitchen area on the first floor, and then three bedrooms on the second floor.

because of the roof's slope of the existing front of the house, which we're maintaining, the bedroom is really tight. we're only allowed to put one bedroom there and some closets to the side. but at the rear portion, you could see the existing port is remaining, and new, to the left, allows us to have two new bedrooms back there. [buzzer] >> this is the elevation of the house currently. we'll be removing the asbestos siding and replacing it with new horizontal siding, new winwindows, and new garage door. these are, again, the elevations of the nordoff house, and then the two proposed houses next door. here we go. and then this is the rendering for the corner house, 95 nordoff, that

we're preserving, and you see the raised portion at the back to get the extra height. [buzzer] >> chairman: mr. pantlioni, your time is up. the commissioners he may have questions. >> i'll answer any questions we have. >> chairwoman: we'll take public comment on this item. i have a few speaker cards. jocelyn shelley, larry catalin, jennifer, bashir abdellah, carolyn flagg and david pierce. if you want to speak on this item and i didn't call your name, you can come up. just line up on the left side, please. someone's got to come up

first. don't be shy. >> my name is larry ketaler, and i own the property at 65 nordoff street. i've been living there for about 40 years, and i knew the lady that passed away at 95 nordoff. the entire i've been there, it has been a nice, big, open space. everyone i know of at the end of the block always knew there were actually two lots. there was 95 and i don't know what that is, 89 or whatever that was, and then there was 65. we're not opposed to the development of this corner. when connie's house was sold, 95 nordoff, we always expected that somebody would develop that side lot. and i applaud the architects for what they've come up with, what they've done. but my conspirac concern is is

that -- i'm sorry for being more articulate. what we'd like to see, what i would like to see, is that 95 and another house on the property. and not, you know, three skinny little houses that are much taller than all of the other adjacent houses around there. i think the architect said this -- that the architectural plans were in keeping with the surrounding land -- architect, and i disagree. because the houses are very old. my house is over 100 years old. the house across the street i think is over 100 years old. i think 69 nordoff, mr. bashir's house, is probably around that age, too. and we have large lots,

admittedly large lots. that's one of the charms of living in this particular neighborhood, is that we have deep backyards. we have -- not all of us have two lots, of course, but i have a lot and a half. and to have this kind of density on that corner lot is -- it impacts the whole nature of the neighborhood. it just diminishes it. [buzzer] >> i think that's it. that's my comment. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i'm jocelyn scally. and i live directly across the street from 95 nordoff street. some time ago we were able

to see a presentation for what their original design was for this piece of property, and that was nice. there was going to be two homes on nordoff street, and then there was going to be two homes facing stillings. so that worked out well. it took away the...this new design has too much density, too much weight on it. where the other two divided it up. there were two facing nordoff street and two homes facing stillings. and right now presently on the street, it is one block long, and there is just so much traffic. and if you have all of those homes facing that street, it is just going to be an overload and severe traffic congestion and related vehicle problems. so i'm urging you to consider not this layout,

but maybe revert back to the proposal of the two homes on nordoff street and an additional home on stillings or maybe two on stillings. >> chairman: okay. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm carolyn flagg. i live on the other house directly across the street from this lot that is being developed. and thank you for hearing us. so i have a few concerns, and one is also about traffic, that this is one street long street, and people use it to cut through from monterey down to a shaughnessy, and it has recently gotten very bad, with a lot of discussion between neighbors about it. there was a list served next door, and there was a very large discussion on

there, and another one going on there about the same area. so my concern is about the increase in traffic. but also combined with the parking that's there because this will take away two, three maybe, parking spots with the driveways coming out all on nordoff street. the previous design who two driveways on stillings and just two on nordoff street. and the other thing i'm concerned about is the height of the property. and that the windows -- there was some discussion with the housing of cayuga. and the neighborhood is set up so nicely, the way they built the houses, very skillfully none of the windows look into anybody else's. so that's very nice. i live on a single lot, and i'm very happy being

there. i'm one of the newer neighbors living there. i moved in in 2013. but most of the people who live on the street have lived there for generations. i also wanted to say it was unfortunate the timing of the meeting. there are a lot of people who couldn't come because of working or picking up kids or things like that. there were a lot of neighbors who wanted to come and speak but weren't able to. pretty much our whole block feels this way. we don't want to keep people out, but we just want it to still be a neighborhood. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you. next speaker please. >> i'm jennifer polchuck, my house was built in 1906, and it is similar to a lot of the houses. this is not affordable

housing. they'll likely be $2 million single-family homes. there are concerns i heard, being here all day, about the importance of open space. and i think this project echoes both of those. it is a double lot, and the plans are to take this corner lot and fill it with four large homes with no space in between. it will over shadow the neighboring homes by four feet, increasing traffic in an already busy intersection, and removing green space. both nordoff and stillings are one lane of traffic. people park on both sides, so in the morning at commute time, you have people constantly having to back up. and they'll only have one lane to work with, so it makes for a narrow street. personally, my car has been hit three times parking on the street. i've lived there almost 20 years. this construction will take away street parking,

adding two garages, and they'll only be one-car garages and adding two new families. the density is not in harmony with glen park neighborhood. i ask your consideration to maintain the scale. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is bashir abdullah, i'm next to the proposed development of the property. i've been living there since 1967. my children are born and raised in there. we love the neighborhood. and we like to keep the traffic flow, the security aspects of the community at controllable levels. my concern, basically, is a lot had been said earlier that the

development is going to produce density. and it's going to create sense of height. and basically it will not be in harmony with the rest of the existing dwellings on nordoff street. nordoff street will take much more with this subdivision, in terms of the parking and traffic and also the harmony aspect of it. traffic naturally is going to be a concern. parking, as well, as we mentioned earlier. so i would like the commissioners to reconsider the plan to subdivide this for conditional use, which would put more stress on the corner lot. and so your thought in the planning process would be most welcome. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> hello, my name is david pierce, i live at 20 mangels avenue, and i've been there for 30 years. i have several issues with this proposal. one is the height. i don't think it's in with the current status of the houses that are there now. i also think that in -- and previously we've already had concerns with proposals from the developer. in regards to the tree, the redwood tree, it is now going to be moved to a separate stand-alone lot, which he has proposed to sell. i don't know when he sells it, how that is going to be developed. you wouldn't be able to develop that lot without that tree being removed. and i think that tree is essential for this neighborhood. it provides shade and cooling for properties, and we fought this battle

before, and it looks like we're going to have to continue to fight this battle until we die because they are set on removing that tree. this is just another way to get around that, for this tree to be removed. i'm concerned with the, quote, "sub standard lot sizes." i don't think that is conducive to the neighborhood. i want to echo what they said about the traffic. parking is already bad. this will a as ser exacerbate te problem. with lyft and uber, the traffic has increased substantially, certainly in the last five years, if not recently. i think the way the current proposal is, it is not conducive to the neighborhood. i would appreciate you considering what we've said and take that into consideration and make them come back to the drawing board again. thank you for your time. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. come on up. >> i live 8 feet and do not oppose development of the property, but there should be a balance struck. >> state your name for the record. >> my name is roland clark. i oppose allowing the developer to subdivide is at the lot to four lots. this would create a far too dense living situation that is out of sync with the neighbourhood and and exacerbates traffic jams throughout construction. three lots would be better, and would still allow the developer a massive profit of millions of dollars. please reconsider this plan. mike at the consensus is they all oppose the lodging to four a new lots and they oppose four story homes that are out of character with the neighbourhood

more pierce who opposed developer's request wanted to attend the hearing but couldn't because the hearing is in the middle of a workday. this tends to favour the developer. i contest the developer's submission that there are coach no features of the project that can be detrimental to the convenience of those residing in the area. four new lots will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood for years and -- arch three lots enough to make a huge profit? as streets became a major connection and a very narrow to begin with, single driving cart with, if you add construction vehicles for this much time blocking these outlets, he would go joe she would cause collisions and facial facial -- potential fatalities, and we won't be able to able just won't be able to easily access our homes anymore. these buildings were rebuilt at the same time rather than one after the other, drawing out the inconvenience for the neighbors and anyone travelling on these roads. this is an important question. each new house would be a year judge of where the construction noise, and parking problems. and neighborhood is comprised of people who have been drawn to

its peace and tranquility. they have lived here for decades and some for generations. and this development will destroy the neighborhood and remove a lot of green space. it is not so much. none of the new houses will be below market rate mac, or affordable, none. amo -- most likely through million-dollar houses, one even has an elevator. this is not about allowing average people to buy a new home in this city. the request as him trying to maximize his profit to an excessive level, making millions of each property and leaving. he will not have to lift her years of construction for each new house or renovation, or the end result of such overly dense four story houses in the neighborhood. the proposed -- the proposal does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood at all. importantly, two of the three houses are not three-story buildings by four, they waited it as three-story over garage. common building type in the area is usually two stories. the developer included a developer team that worked