square feet with 2 units, two apartments. i have one of the smallest buildings on the street. when i bought that building, i went to the planning department and i said what can i do to this building, could i add another story to it? no. that would violate the rear setback. you cannot do that. so now i'm looking at a variance according to my understanding it is not loud if there is a practical difficulty that only if there is a practical difficulty not created by the applicant. this applicant obviously bought this property with the intention of tearing down the house in front. now i'm sure he must have talked to his realtor and the realtor told him you are going to

need a variance for this. i have been to the planning department. why would a speculate or, he is speculating on this property. he's going to the planning department and saying you can get a variance on this property. why would he say that? i couldn't get a variance. i don't understand why this even is being discussed. there is no difficulty here. this person bought the property with the intention of tearing down the house and building in the rear yard. this is not consistent with the neighborhood. i'm also concerned about the future of this neighborhood if this is passed. if this is passed, my realtor is going to tell me that you can buy that house on 10 ord court and tear that thing down and build two big houses one 1 on

state street and 5,000 square feet, you are going to have every developer in san francisco or wherever this come from coming into our neighborhoods and tearing down the houses and building these monster buildings to replace the old housing that exist in there no you that is part of what we all love about our neighborhood. >> good afternoon. my partner and i live at 26 ord court. we want to see

housing density increased where appropriate. we strongly support owners right to develop properties to the full extent consistent with zoning and design guidelines of the city and we also agree that variances should be granted when there are compelling reasons to do so. we urge you to deny these projects and the variance. the structures of state street is out of scale and i find the architectural detail maybe on the front. the buildings would be harmful to the neighborhood over all. instead of two magnificent cypresses tearing over the roof, you would be looking 50 feet above the properties. they would exchange the potential for 2

units at ord court with a reasonable size for two luxury houses each more appropriate for an rh 1 lots. whenever rental sales price, 1800-2,000 square feet are more affordable to 3,000 square feet as this is propose. this neighborhood is made up of two lots. we believe this doesn't currently meet the planning of the zoning variance. for example west 32 state street each has a structure and the state street awarded vegetation and 200-foot stretch on the north side of state street that is park like. should it

variance be granted. we wonder on what grounds commissioners might have a similar request on the neighborhood. why would ernest not seek to combine the two 2 units in the zoning to apply for variance on the state street in the lots. the number of dwellings remain the same and middle and high income residents would be shut out by 4,000 square foot properties and damage done to the environments. my partner and i believe there is a compelling reason. city clerk: thank you, sir, your time is up. >> good afternoon, my name is maryann drez ner and i have lived on

ord court for years. a request to build three very large structures where there is now one small to medium structure. as i understand it the granting of a variance requires there be exceptional circumstances so the property owner would sustain real hardship if this matter is not granted. in this matter there is no hardship to the owner. in case the owner would be able to construct a smaller home, someone of median income can rent that home and it would be materially detrimental to the area to property improvements to the vicinity. in this case

construction over the property of the rear yard is going to block the units on 31 state street, it's going to block light on the entire of state street and the construction is going to be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. currently, excuse me san francisco is unique partially because it has unique neighborhoods. the neighborhoods of ord court and state street have a mix of condos and apartments, all structures which are modern and this will cause the street to look like modern for --

fortresses. san francisco likes to be a walking city. people like to walk in it because it's different from most of the other cities in the united states which all look the same. san francisco is charming and it variety of structures makes san francisco interesting. with the addition of these two ultra modern structures, this street will lose it's charm. in conklu klux -- conclusion i want to say that proposition m says that we are to maintain our residential neighborhoods beautiful. 22 ord court can be built slightly smaller and behind 22 and 24 ord court. city clerk: thank you, ma'am.

your time is up. >> my name is chris wilson, i live a 236 state street. across from the development. i apologize for any repetition. i will try to be as quick as i can. my fellow neighbors and i are concerned about the impact of granting a variance for these two single family homes on the rear yard. we believe the variance would be a press cedent and catalyst for the area. i want to share a

development in the neighborhood happening right now. this is no the the property in question. it's down the street. this yellow outline shows a load of trees that were removed earlier this year. that's the lot before, that's the lot half way through the building and this is it right now. these are some before and after photos of what's happening to our street. some of this rear lot green space is potentially at risk if the variance is granted. the red areas show real lots that are in danger of being developed if a developer were to buy those. the orange shows the development in question and the yellow shows it's too late, we've already lost a load of trees and there is a huge

development there. the personal impact to me is that this is a view from my front gate. what i will see instead is a really nice tree right there. the outline was provided by the developer. showing the side of the property and i'm a designer, not a developer. i had to google what a variance is and learned about this. thanks to sf planning and i know you know what they all are. we don't feel the circumstances are exceptional or extraordinary. the only hardship will be a loss of profit. to be honest i don't understand no. 3 so i don't want to go into that one. as outlined i think it will be detrimental to the

public welfare with a significant loss to trees. the post development is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. the developer is using it as a building reference, not the majority of the landscape. i wanted to urge you to deny the variance. >> good evening commissioners. i think everything has pretty much been covered. what i would really encourage commissioners to do is go to state street and you will see across the street. it's very over bearing. it's not in line with the character of the street and it doesn't add i think any sort of value

to the street which is unfortunate. now we are dealing with a new project that is being proposed that again it mentions earlier is going to set a precedent and more people are going to start speculating on our street which continues to change the character. i hope that commissioners understand that. it's just not for us and also for future generations. i have two young sons that i expect to raise on state street. i want them toen to enjoy the street as it is today. >president cindy wu: thank you. is there additional public comment? >>

>> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is jutsdz judith. you have before you a letter from our chair and signed by pat you ter a. the president of the neighborhood association.

commissioners, we ask that the 45 percent rear yard requirement for the lots be enforced to the lots today. two new buildings on the south side of state street can have an i mpact on the prevailing street. you asked for smaller and more affordable and sensitive to the character of the street. which commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: has described. the two rear yards improvement would have greater affect on the street. the result would be unusable space between the existing building and destroy the rustic ambiance that the backyard

provides to the existing houses on north court as well as state street. additional ly the two proposed single family homes would not be affordable. therefore the planning committee supported the dr request. we request the code requirement for rh 2 rear yards be strictly enforced for this project and variance be denied. the neighbors have suggested as an alternative project that the existing house at 22 ord court be expanded to achieve 2 units. this is an achievable goal and the neighborhood support it. the ord court is not under consideration at this time if it's not considered an historic resources. also take note that at 24 ord court, the

residents are in their 90s. >president cindy wu: is there any additional comment in support of the dchlr? dr? >> you have 15 minutes if you desire. >> good evening, commissioners, john here on behalf of the project sponsor. the project before you would create two new family size dwelling units and expand an existing family home. the two new single family homes would front state street, three 3 stories at the street. each essentially

has a three bedroom home on the top two floors and the smaller home has a guest room. the renovations to the existing home on 22 ord court consist adding a story to the new structure and would provide a five foot 5-foot setback on the entire east side and west side matching the adjacent home. the existing home at 22 ord court is poorly laid out with under size living areas and the renovation will make the home much more functional for a family. the project sponsor has decided not to pursue at 24 ord court

because there is existing living tennants at 90 years old. they are not touching that. the variance is merited here. the project would further the development of the hilly shape. in fact the planning code and planning policies encouraging the development of the homes on the lot. the only reason the variance is required because the two individual homes are at the end of the lot generally the planning code and policies encourage the lots to have work on either to provide construction on the street. the project sponsor also did not allow the expansion of a unit. it wouldn't be a good idea to have that type of mass. the project sponsor has been very open to

this project throughout the process. he's met with several of the concerned neighbors a number of times and offering design alternatives. it does appear that in the dr requester are not able to accept new development of the project. the project sponsor has agreed to all modification requested by the planning department including the reason for the 5-foot step back on the east side for it's entire depth and this was asked specifically to provide additional light and air to the dr requester who has that facing room on the part of the lot. most importantly the project is consistent with the neighborhood and the design guidelines. let's start with 22 ord court, the new floor is original setback from the property and not be prominent from the street. this maintains the 3 story building on the street. if i can get the

projector. this is 22 ord, it's an existing 3 story home. here is a rendering of what the new floor will look like, a significant setback. not prominent at the street. a direct view of it is a setback at the top not going to have a significant impact on the street which is the purpose. now, moving to the state street building, both of the three 3 stories at the street and both have setback at the third floor, three 1/2 and four 4 feet from the front lot line. so there is as mentioned there is a building two stores down with 3 stories with no front setback and the building has not set a precedent in the immediate vicinity. as

ugg see that building, 3 stories, no setback, here is 22, 24 ord court, very similar situation with 3 stories. take a look at the rendering on state street. consistent with the immediate vicinity. and the 3 stories are less impactful when considering the buildings across the street are uphill from the curb. these are the shot across the street so you can see most of the buildings are significantly set up the hill. so moving to site design and open anticipate which has been brought up as well, the project does propose a site design and open space consistent with other projects on the block. what you see here is a zoom in on the subject lot here are the two new homes proposed. 22 ord court, 24 ord court. we have another

situation here. two homes, either street, block open space. we have the building that we've been talking about. two homes with open space and another one at the end here. by no means is this project setting a precedent at this block. it's a mid-block open space pattern and this is not going to be setting a precedent. in addition the existing open space on the lot is not useful to the residents of the home. this is 22 ord court, very steep slope. this is the rear of 24 ord court. very steep slope. in fact up here about 45-degree angle. this is a few looking downhill. so it's got competent hill. there is no use for it by the residents. what the project

will do is provide adequate open space through the use of deck and patios, significant green and landfill will fill the lot open space. the project will create open space which is much more suitable and better serving to the residents of the building. according to the city's tax records. 24 are over 2,000 square feet. these are not precedent setting when looking the entire street. the opponents have brought up a couple other issues. there are the issues of the significant trees on state street and 24 ord court. the trees have been certified to be a danger. the owner of this property has been

since 2013. the staff has recommended removal of the tree with a permit. the trees need to come down regardless of the proposed project. apparently this is a type of pruning that is illegal understate law and certainly not consistent with city guidelines. in addition to that, the western neighbor at 30 state street right there, has expressed concern with that tree as well with limbs falling on their structure as the troo -- tree is significantly encroaching over it. the project sponsor is not developing any other projects in this neighborhood. there has been some mention to a project down the street, that is not this developer. they should not be penalized for that. thank

you. i'm available for questions. >president cindy wu: thank you, open up for public comment in support of the project. steve carbajal. >> good afternoon commissioners, i don't live on state street now. once upon a time i did call state street home but i'm very familiar with the area. you heard the description about a wonderful space. on the uphill side that's very true. we have all of these lots in a row where the backyard faces state street and those are all hr already 2 units built. that's going to be built pretty well unless you allow for the planning code with more units. the downhill side of state street is quite a bit

difference in pedestrian, states is the long and single long street in the city of san francisco. the block is quite different. i know commissioner richards has been up there. but this is what you look at when you are a pedestrian in front of 22 and 24 ord street. it's a big tall fence. it's been there. the dog thought it was very interesting. there used to be some chickens on that side of the fence. it's mostly fences and garages in that mid-block area. so providing housing on that, i think the developer is providing an alternative to having a big massive structure down on ord court and that alternative might be given consideration. i will say there is going to be some impacts. it's real easy to park up there and they are going to lose some

parking spots. we are already losing parking spots because 214 state street is putting up garages there and it's going to be tough and you lose your views. from the basement where i stayed you had great views of eureka valley and now that's the view of the basement. you have to go to the first occupiable floor in order to have a view. they are going to lose the view from the basement to the ground level, but i think you should consider the alternative. again, be careful what you ask for. if you don't want them to build on state street, what's the alternative going to be, i think the neighbors might not like the alternative. thank you. >president cindy wu: thank you, is there additional support on

part of the project sponsor? >> if not. you have up to six minutes. 6 minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you commissioners. i just want to cover a couple of things quickly at the beginning here. i have a picture. so i showed this before. i think the project sponsor mentioned this large structure to the south. i want to point out that is built on a split lot. it's not a true lot. i think that's importance because we are requesting the variance be denied. the exceptional circumstances which

the project sponsor wishes to build at the back of the rear of the property. many other properties in the city are zoned rh 2 and manage to provide 2 units of housing without building in the rear yard. it is available to this project sponsor to remodel the existing building to provide 2 units of housing. any built project has difficulties. there are steep sections in the back of the yard, but there are options. you can look at the other developments and there are steep properties and there are options. developers i believe contractors are very skilled in that kind of thing. the nileance of this variance, the