rich 1.0 Action Network https://actionnetwork.org <link href='https://actionnetwork.org/css/style-embed-v3.css' rel='stylesheet' type='text/css' /><script src='https://actionnetwork.org/widgets/v6/petition/support-homes-at-95-nordhoff-street?format=js&source=widget'></script><div id='can-petition-area-support-homes-at-95-nordhoff-street' style='width: 100%'><!-- this div is the target for our HTML insertion --></div> San Francisco YIMBY https://actionnetwork.org/groups/sfyimby https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/petitions/photos/000/184/453/normal/Screen_Shot_2020-06-22_at_4.23.31_PM.png As we all know, new apartments are prohibited on nearly every parcel in and around Glen Park. As a result, we don't often get a chance to support an increase in the neighborhood's housing supply. Today is one of those days. In 2014, a petition was circulated decrying “The Manhattanization of Glen Park” because the owners of 95 Nordhoff, a 1908 farmhouse on a quadruple-size lot, proposed to demolish the existing building, subdivide the land into four smaller lots, and construct a 35-foot zoning-compliant house on each of them. Neighbors filed for Discretionary Review against the project, alleging objections up to and including that the project as drawn would be “a threat to the health and safety of the neighborhood”. Over the next six years, the project sponsor went through many rounds of negotiations with neighbors and hearings before the Planning Commission over issues such as whether they should be allowed to remove an existing redwood tree growing in their backyard (no), whether they should be allowed to instead relocate the tree to a different part of their property (yes), whether the Board of Appeals should overturn that decision (no), and whether the house was too historic to demolish (no; arguments to the contrary included that Spanish settlers’ cattle may have once grazed on the land and that the site is “only 945 feet” away from a state landmark and “only 940 feet” from an MLB Hall-of-Famer's former home). The roadblocks continued, and the sponsor eventually agreed to redesign the project around the stated objections: it would keep one of the four parcels vacant (long story), leave the existing house standing, and keep the tree in its current location. However, to make this possible, the new lots had to be redrawn in a way that our local zoning deems “nonstandard”. By San Francisco law, building a home on a nonstandard lot requires a Conditional Use Authorization. The CUA hearing was in April 2019; the Planning Commission waited until December to announce its decision to let the project proceed. If you've read this far, you'll be unsurprised to learn that the neighbors have now appealed this Conditional Use Authorization to the full Board of Supervisors. That hearing has been rescheduled repeatedly since January of this year. Now, six years after the original four-unit project was proposed, it will be heard by the Board of Supervisors this Tuesday, June 23. If you think... ...that San Francisco's planning process is broken ...that it shouldn't take six years to gain approval to start building two homes ...that during a pandemic, our Board of Supervisors should not be wasting its time on this ...that in the midst of a nationwide conversation around race, segregation, and equity, it’s time to reject the tools that generations of wealthy white homeowners have used to maintain exclusionary control over who gets to live on their blocks https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/support-homes-at-95-nordhoff-street