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 to satisfy all the neighbors as much as possible, not true, they do not reach out to my partner and i. a ten minute search of the assigned names, those 20 submissions of what is found almost all the realtors for coldwell banker real estate, total work for a title company, they will support the developer, 19 letters are exactly the same

wording. it is a clear conflict of interest in the second time the developer has done that. >> your time is up. >> i didn't get a chance to -- that is a list, if you could include that. >> you can submit that, your time is up. >> thank you so much. >> you did not get a chance to submit them. >> you can submit them. >> thank you, very much. >> any other public comment on this item? without public comment, that -- public comment is closed. >> i want to speak to the project without having really received neighborhood comments prior to looking at the project, and speak to it as we do look at all other projects, particularly with our very difficult responsibility to look at infinite opportunities and appropriate densification whenever we can find a lots. when i looked at the plans, and i'm not saying that in response to not hearing you, i heard the

neighbors concerns, i take them very much into consideration, i'm speaking to what is in front of me, which did not include any of your comments, saying that, this project made me smile, it is the creativity that made me feel that we are on the right track here. the project, the three buildings -- the total buildings which are proposed by code compliant. the minor adjustments that are already the subject of our decisions today are, i think, completely in keeping with what our task really is. the subdivision is a little bit more complicated due to the fact that previous commitments about the retention of the redwood tree drove the retention of the other home, which then further complicates the lot itself. it is subdivided in a manner by which multiple buildings could comfortably sit on the very

large corner parcel, emphasis on corner parcel, so i have to actually -- i half to not as this being a very creative and very harmonious solution. i do also have to take stuff such a careful evaluation into consideration, which basically does not leave one page unturned to look as to whether or not they are deficiency are not -- or not. there are none. the staff believes that from code compliance to density, size , and architectural characteristics, the project is compatible with the neighborhood , and further to that, it is basically unnecessary and desirable desirable project given the very difficult charge for us to support density and support sensitive infill, which i believe this project achieves.

>> thank you. commissioner hillis? >> i generally like that there is new units coming on this lot, but can i ask the architect a question for a minute, i did a little -- it is -- there are 78 -- it is 7300 square feet. >> the existing lot. >> if you do the math, a typical lot is 25 by 100, it is three lots, you have divided this into four. why did you do that, first of all? >> we are under the planning code at a corner where we are allowed to reduce the size of the lots down to 1750, within 150 feet of the corner, a hundred and 30, so that gave us the opportunity for more density at the corner. >> okay. and then the fourth, why aren't you proposing anything from the fort -- for the fourth lot? is that the tree? >> no, our neighbor next door

has property line windows right on the property line, and we had a discussion with them a year and a half ago about his possibly purchasing the project property, so that maybe he can use it as a side yard or develop it someday, so we decided to put that on hold and focus on the other three parcels facing the yard. >> okay. and then as far as the height of the two buildings, i know they are code compliant, but i apologize to the neighbors, i do use congo to drive up and caught cut through to get up to monterey, but it is giving me the opportunity to see this neighborhood, which is lovely, but they are tall compared to -- i get the code, but it is tall. i don't think i've seen other four story structures there, but maybe i just don't go the right approach. can you tell me about the context there.

>> the first floor is essentially a basement. it is dug into the ground. >> kind of. >> if you look at their beer of those houses, there are stairs for them to come up out of the garage. >> right. >> there are three stories above it, and the height limit is 35 feet, and it follows the contour of the elevation as it slopes up and that is how we are able to get the uppermost floors setback. they are set back about 15 feet from the front façade, so that will help eliminate the massing of it from the street. >> okay. , how many square feet are the two? >> continue houses or 2600 square feet. >> that is livable but gross. >> gross. >> i mean you are not concluding -- including the garage and that , are you? >> no. >> total square footage is 3,466 roughly. >> i would've loved to see four smaller houses on this.

it is glen park, you are fairly close to the b.r.t. station there, i can -- i thank you were just doing too much, you know, especially not knowing what will happen with the fourth lot, you are generally taller than most and the lots are smaller than most. i get wanting to densifying, but i would love to see 42,000 square foot homes or 2200 square foot all of these lots then the two 3300, and i get it, you have gone underneath, but to me, it is just a little too much they you are asking for in these, without you knowing what that fourth parcel is going to be, and again, i'm fine with four units here, but i think it would be nice -- i would have left for this to be two units in those two buildings, and the buildings you are building, two each, but

it is r.h. one, and in that size , i thank you can fit that in the footprint you have, again , i like a lot about this project but that is what making -- is making me uneasy. it is too large monster homes, but they are pretty big and one to come, i would imagine. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> i am in complete agreement with commissioner hillis. i looked at this, and the first thing i saw was the tree, and despite millions of dollars of trying to save the tree at 323 cumberland, which we had an arborist come in and a tree saving plan, they developed the lot not only on three to three cumberland by the lot on sanchez and the tree is dead, it was huge. i must have been 12 feet around. i thank you are doing too much here. i would like to see two units in each of the buildings. i would have an a.d.u., since we now are allowed to do those in new construction, but take the

lot and take them all the way to the back property line, you have three houses, nice backyards, the tree gets saved, you get two units in each building. that is my 2 cents. >> commissioner koppel? >> i am with commissioner richards on the sun. i don't know where the votes are going right now. >> motion? >> make a motion. >> we make a motion to continue. >> second. >> what are the instructions? can't we just do the conditional use now? >> are you giving direction to the project sponsor -- >> we would like to see an 80 you designed within the two. >> all three structures including the structure that is going to be remaining original structure on the corner. >> and the lots go -- >> you subdivided into three

lots and not four. >> reconfigured, okay. we probably need a continuance. >> second. >> did commissioner johnson say something? >> i want to make sure in that direction, there's also a direction to explore two units in each of the buildings. >> yes. >> okay. >> it is an 80 you. >> it is r.h. one, so it will have to be an aide to you. >> they can be up to 1200 square feet, i think. >> commissioner moore? >> what is in front of this commission is the subdivision only, that is basically the issue. i think, i have to rely on mr. washington, but this will open a whole other can of worms because i have a hard time giving the concerns of public has for the neighbor has density

that adding 380 used here, which in any other neighborhood would be desirable, i think this will not strike -- this will strike the wrong tone because now you are adding, instead of one living unit, you're adding basically two, which did increase the potential number of cars, which increases a significant number of people, so i have to go to you, what is in front of this commission is only the issue of subdivision, we are in r.h. one as to whether or not create a solution to adding an 80 you, it will -- 80 you it will not make the lots of wider, it will only make them longer, which is not exactly what the communities addressing here. >> mr. washington. >> it is figuring the conditional use authorization, that aspect, if that is changed, because you no longer want to have that fourth parcel subdivided and butting into the

neighbor, that would have to be removed in essence and it would come back more as a standard 311 notification and could potentially be for the commission. we would be giving them direction. if we withdrew, if they withdrew the conditional use authorization -- >> please speak in the microphone. >> it was still be by the notification for 311 and that could potentially be adr. >> yes. >> so the conditional use authorization is brought before you because it is a combination of the the subdivision with single-family homes. in this case, the two lots that are being presented are the ones that are being developed with single-family homes, and that is what triggering the conditional use authorization. as was mentioned, if they were to subdivide and come in with conforming lots or single-family homes, the only way you guys would see that project would be if it was a standard 311 section

notification at that point. >> commissioner hillis? >> to follow up on that, if you took it and try to divide it into three lots, whether you had the fourth lot in the back or not, he would still have two substandard lots because you can't get the 25-foot -- the 25 square feet. is that not true? >> we would have three standard lots. >> can i just mentioned, it would be difficult in the existing house to put an a.d.u. it is too small. >> it would be very difficult. >> i just think, if you go -- to address those neighborhood concerns, and the project itself , i get the a.d.u. you would have two new buildings with four units and two would be a.d.u., and we run into this that we can design them so they look and feel like an a.d.u., but no guarantee that they are necessarily used that way.

i would rather see the size of those buildings come down, because i don't thank you can bring them down by putting in a.d.u. in them, you will actually make -- you need two units. you need to develop or bring a proposal in for the fourth lot and have three 2100 square feet homes that could potentially have in a.d.u. in them down the line, instead of two at larger ones within a.d.u. that may or may not be used that way. >> i'm sorry, i'm very confused about what you are wanting. >> they're asking for a direction, or commissioner richards was asking for direction to eliminate that fourth lot. >> can you put the site plan up? >> please go to the computer, please. >> you would want two a.d.u. in that new structure, and eliminate the fourth lot. >> yeah. if possible or we can have three

single-family homes. >> go ahead, commissioner richards. >> or we could have three single-family homes that are on a regular conforming lots and put it a.d.u. in them if they want. here we talked about biodiversity an hour ago and talking about this big redwood tree that we know will go away if that lot is developed. >> commissioner moore? >> to me, conforming lots, we do not have the lines along the streets to create 325-foot lots. >> i was incorrect, i was wrong. >> there's just not the width. even if you make three lots of drop the fourth one, we'll never get compliant lots, we will always have basically the same question to approve a subdivision, his might slightly smaller lots with three homes, which have deeper yards, or with four lots, which later on, at some point, ye