Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors accept terms of settlement to approve 95 Nordoff subdivision with conditions to protect redwood tree
Summary
After mediation led by a supervisor's office, the Board of Supervisors approved planning commission action on a four‑lot subdivision at 95 Nordoff Street, adding conditions that limit building heights and require pilings on one lot to protect a significant coastal redwood.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on June 23 approved the planning commission’s conditional use authorization for a subdivision at 95 Nordoff Street in the Glen Park neighborhood, incorporating a settlement negotiated between the project sponsor and an area neighbor.
Supervisor Ahsha Safa? (transcript identifies only “Supervisor Mandelmann” as the item mover and the clerk recorded speakers as supervisors) — the item came through Supervisor Mandelmann's office — summarized the agreement as one that preserves renovation of the existing 1900 single‑family home, limits heights for newly created lots and adds protections meant to preserve a roughly 60‑foot coastal redwood on the site.
Key conditions in the settlement: the board incorporated the planning commission’s approvals but added limiting language agreed by the parties. The conditions set a 33‑foot height cap — measured under Planning Code rules — for the three new lots, preserve a 3‑foot setback from a south property line on Lot 4, require pile foundations (no slab) for Lot 1 facing Stillings Avenue, and mandate a 12‑foot front facade setback along Stillings to protect the redwood’s root structure.
Why it matters: Neighbors had appealed the planning commission approval, citing concerns about the health and long‑term viability of a protected urban forestry specimen and the scale of new construction in a neighborhood of mostly lower structures. The settlement aims to balance the sponsor’s housing goals with neighbor protections for the tree and adjacent properties.
Process and votes: The board first tabled a motion to approve the conditional use (item 31). The board then amended the conditional disapproval motion (item 32) to impose the agreed conditions, and finally approved item 32 as amended and item 33 (directing preparation of findings) by recorded roll call votes; each recorded vote was unanimous (11 ayes). The supervisor who introduced the settlement thanked both the appellant, Steven Gantz, and the project sponsor, John Kaufman, and noted long‑running negotiations over several years.
Meeting context: The transcript shows the parties, including the appellant and sponsor, both stating they were prepared to stipulate to the settlement and to move the appeal to a resolution without further contested hearing time. Several members of the public called in during the public hearing to express support for preserving the tree and for building new housing.
