hear items 15a and 16a for case number 2013.1521dd v and the zoning administrator will consider case no. 2013.1521ddv and 22v and 24 ord court. there is a single requester on 3 separate building applications and zoning requester will receive 15 minutes and because they are three separate building applications they will each receive 15 minutes. you will also receive 6

minutes for rebuttal. nieftsdz -- neither of you have to use all 15 minutes and 6 minutes for rebuttal. >president cindy wu: thank you. >> good afternoon, tina chang, planning department staff. the item before you are a request for discretionary review for three building permits applications. two building permits for two lots. one permit is for the vertical and horizontal expansion of the existing single family dwelling unit and 22 ord court and the secretary -- second is the single family home. the third building permit for a new construction of the single family home at the rear also measuring approximately 25 feet by 118 feet. the two permits at the

rear construction are within the varying yards. it was originally scheduled for august 27, 2013 , and then heard with the planning commission to hear the discretionary review request. the project side on the north side in the castro upper market neighborhood and falls within rh 2 zoning. the proposing existing structure at 22 ord court by 8 inches and vertical level to add a master bedroom suite. the third, at the balcony at the front on the front of the third level has been reduced to two 1/2 feet. there is a reduction on the third floor level. the

fourth level is setback approximately 19 1/2 feet from the building wall which is approximately 8 feet deep. the current height measures about 29 feet and the proposed height would become 38 feet. the proposed new construction at the rear of 22 and 24 ord court are 3 story four level buildings with a fourth level that backs up about 3 1/2 feet from the front facade. both provide 3 and 4 bedrooms half bathrooms facing ord court by a rear yard of approximately 29 feet, 7 inches. the proposed structure behind 22 ord court measures about 27 1/2 feet in height and about 2900 including the garage.

the proposed construction measures about 28 feet deep, about 2800-foot including the garage. it's a 1, 2, 3 story building. the topography heads north with a description about 32 feet from ord court to the rear front street. the property to the east is back to about 18 feet. the building arises to another two 2 stories with a setback from 20 feet and appears to be about 100 feet deep. so this building takes up nearly the entire lot. the existing structure at 24 ord court is one 1 story over the garage. no existing structure is proposed. the end of ord court street is

about 16 lots. 14 or 88 percent are through lots. 8 of these lots have two structures at the front of the rear and more than 85 percent of lot coverage and zoning district a zoning yard of 45 percent is required. 6 of the 16 lots have dwelling units facing ord court or 55 percent of lot coverage about 3 percent. the rdt sta scale of the proposed structure to be compatible with the block face and complimentary to the neighborhood in character. actual discretionary review filed, rdt recommended the setback on the proposed level at 22 ord court be continued to the rear. the project supplied with the revisions reflect this recommendation. rdt found this modification

would find the light with air property with 2031 state street. to date, the department has received four letters with the project. one came from the eureka valley neighborhood association and the other from neighbors. the letters express concerns about the loss of open space, speculative development and large construction in the neighborhood. the letters were e-mailed directly to but i have copies for anyone who wants to review them. the department commission recommends to take the building and approve the project as recommended by rdt and as amended per the drawings in your packet and not take the r and approve the new construction at the homes at 22, 23 ord court for the following reasons. the projects do not result

in the loss of any dwelling units and section 10 #.1 of the planning code and the project will result in a net gain of two dwelling units. the project will create two family dwelling units. no tennants will be displaced as a result of the project. there will be no significant impact on the location. the r 2 zoning will allow maximum of two zoning units at this lot and will accommodate greater density. this concludes staff's presentation and happy to answer any questions. >president cindy wu: thank you. dr requesters, you have 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is chris parks, a resident of 231, 8th street. i'm on the application for the dr request, however you needed a name on the request, i would say there is a lot of different name that could be on that dr request. i first became aware of the project later than some of the neighbors. my first exposure to it i would say at the variance

hearing in august. i would say that i'm requesting particularly is to deny the variance request. i think they will have a big impact on the project in terms of what it has. i went to the variance request hearing. it was continued. the way the timelines work, i was forced to file a discretionary review request without actually knowing what the outcome of the variance request was going to be and there are three projects. so, dr request for filed on all three. you will find the issues are very similar for all three projects and that there is a lot of repetition in those packets and i apologize for that. i believe the project sponsor will go into a lot more details about the actual project. on the

display right now is a little overview of it. the plot map is involving two lots, 22 ord court and 24 ord court. there are two new homes being constructed on the stateside of the property, they are being constructed on the rear yards of those lots and there is also an expansion to 22 ord court down at the bottom on ord court. i wanted to focus on the fabric of state street and concerned about this variance that impact it will have on the community on state street. from this slide you can see there is the white sign indicating the variance

hearing and you can see the street. i live on the property to the left of the sign and you can see a number of trees that inhabit our street. this street is made up of a lot of trees. as i have come through this process i have learned why we have so many trees and such a beautiful street. is because there are a lot of through lots on state treat -- street that runs through ord court. that building requires that you have a unit and protected yard. there is a lot of through lots on this street and they alternate. sometimes you have the backyard on state street, sometimes on ord court. that really adds

what we enjoy on this street and the other street as well. just to give a little clarity 22 is to the left and 24 up top and those are the back yards on state street. already a couple of large trees that are in the backyard of 24 ord court. there might be more and those are now slated for removal in order to match the building envelope. another shot of our street as you can see more of the trees, more back yards in these trees live in those protected back yards. okay, a little bit east of the property you can see up the street. i'm afraid that this is showing up a little dark on the display. so i may switch over

to my prints. from here you can see the backyard and up the veet. this -- street. this shows you. the department has a lot more information on it. it will actually create sort of a large structured wall here which is a concern for the immediate neighborhood. this is a rendition

that was provided by the project sponsor. this is opposite this is up the street. this shows you what state street looks like today. what i wanted to make a point of was i mentioned that we have through lots. this shows you. it's going to be a little bit difficult to see. this is the project with two lots. it's going to be difficult to see. the back yards alternate. here are the back yards here and here. you will see a lot of all of these are through lots

with back yards. there are some exceptions. there are the apartment buildings that were constructed decades ago. a large part of the streets come through these lots. a little bit zoomed in you can see a little bit closer to the project and you can see a little more of the back yards that are being protected by the rh 2 zoning. this area here, it was in the staff report. they did an analysis. they focused on this quadrant which was the west south side of state street. they came up with some stuff and you can see there is apartment buildings here that are existing. they provide a lot of housing but the staff kind of focused on this. the staffing

focused on this quadrant. again this shows the section where the staff report focus. i wanted to show you both sides of the streets of the project. you can see they alternate in terms of back yards. it's still difficult to see, but i kind of drew a line to see the center of each property. you can see from what i got from google maps, you can see that there is always, there is usually always greenery in one side of the other. this is a split lot. this is actually a split lot. so these are not through lots. they wouldn't be subject to this variance

request. the apartment building actually provides affordable housing. the apartment building are 500 to 600 square feet single family units. i wanted to point something out about this project. the minimum standards of the planning code except that it meets a variancement a variance would be permitted to permit construction into ord court and that would have the significant impact on the character of state street. so allowing the request, the big concern is allowing these variances request on 22 and 24 ord court would encourage

project sponsors and they would seek further variances. i did do a search for a variance. i had a hard time finding a variance that was approved to construct new homes in this fashion. i went back to 1985 and did find a variance request denied on state street. this has particularly not been acceptable for this neighborhood. staff's report does talk about a number of property where there is encroachment in parts of a lot. this is to construct second dwellings in the rear yard as second residences. so i wanted to say as terms of affordability. it's mentioned in the

packet. the outcome of this is there is going to be at 22 ord court which is considered perhaps affordable by what i heard from the previous discussions at the planning commission and it's going to replace that with another property that's going to be not considered affordable and it's going to put in two new properties that is not affordable so absolutely it is valuable to the community to add housing stock, but if you look at the outcome of this project we are actually losing affordable housing stock. it's a big concern and i don't believe it's in line with the commission's policies. in requesting, i have some information if that's okay. in working with project sponsor we did ask for information

that didn't require a variance. we asked for the reasons of the variance request and why they are not justified. i will go back to the picture now. the project sponsor did give us this alternative. i would not vote for this project. i would question this violates the rear yard requirement because of the depth it goes and i would argue it does violate. i know there is alternative methods of averaging but i do not believe they apply to this property. however it does provide and opportunity to show that you can add a second dwelling to 22 ord court providing additional housing.

so this is an opportunity and there are other options and we would encourage a project sponsor to offer those offers, those other options from the planning department so they may review them. you will also notice quickly in this discussion about the height of 22 ord court, this option, the height of 22 ord court, the fourth level is not depicted. there is options here even if you do not add a level to 22 ord court. so again, i took pictures of the trees. these are the backyard. the tree slated for removal is a monterey cypress. this tree

has been maintained. the project sponsor does have an opportunity to maintain these trees and mention ed with the 5-year program, they can catch up and it's above the powerlines and can be maintained and something the future generations can look upon which is not slated if the tree is removed. there is a development now going up next to the trees. there were trees here but they are gone. so there is a lot of development going on in the street. the character of the street is very important. i know there is a checklist that is looked through when making a decision on is it

meeting the characteristic requirements, however it's important that that capture, when projects are going and being approved that they really try and capture what's being done and being able to assess that. that is a policy requirement with the commission and the city and it's important that the planning department is able to assess that and being able to implement that at the project level and not some higher level. i will save my time for rebuttal. >president cindy wu: thank you, now we'll take speakers in support of the dr. gary white. the first

speaker can come to the podium. >> hi, my name is alexa slow. i'm an architect and representing the neighbors in opposition to this project. today i would like to focus on the character of this neighborhood. i listened to the broadcast of the 53 state street dr hearing last month and found all of your comments in regards to that project intelligent and well reasoned. as noted, state street is a great neighborhood and patterned along one side of each property.

this is a sand born map showing open space in gray. the open space is staggered often landscaped rather than paved. sometimes the yard occurs on median wave and sometimes on state. having a yard above a property line on the lot means the neighborhood can see it and enjoy it. it is not buried on the lot by buildings. the mid-block open space usually occur on a lot not two lots. there are two areas out of 31 where this occurs where someone has built a house on each side of the property. that's less than 10 percent. this is not a common pattern of the neighborhood where the majority of lots are three lots. the

proposed project is asking not only to put it in the middle of the block, but also to put two massive buildings above the property lines of these two lots. i put a little person there to see the scale. it's mostly paved. is this pleasant or well designed outdoor space. does this enrich the character of this neighborhood? >> i believe it takes away from it. commissioner moore referred to this type of development as an extrusion. we asked the project sponsor to consider a more sensitive approach and come up with a less extruded

design. we ask the proposal for these lots does not need a variance. by expanding back on ord court with a reasonable square footage. city clerk: madam, your time is up. >president cindy wu: next speaker? >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is gary wise from the neighborhood and neighborhood district of the land use committee. the proposed development at 22 and 24 ord court is six is doors outside of the boundaries but still of great concern as we've seen these become to huge concrete homes. we do not support the element, we support

densities. what we are almost opposed to is sacrificing the rear yard open space for over development. this is a massive project. i urge you to listen to the neighbors concerns. the two additional units gained come at an enormous cost in the form of open space. at the planning and land use committee we support the neighbors er. thank you. >president cindy wu: next speaker? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is henry eisner, i live at 51 state street. i object to this development for several reasons. the scale of the project is excessive for it's location, the timing is exceptionally poor given the blockage currently on state street by another project. just a few doors

down i believe someone said was owned by the same developer and i'm opposed to the in filling of the rear lots and impact it will have on the local wild life. i would like to talk about the issue, the zoning variance required. this commission knows better than i that our zoning laws are set up for good reason and with some thought put the into them. the allowance for variance is necessary of course because there are often good reasons to make exceptions. the project my serve an important community function, might perform an individual need, it might beautiful or improve the neighborhood in someway. this proposal does none of those things. it does not provide our affordable housing, it does not beautify the neighborhood. in fact the only thing that makes it special is it's an especially large size. as far as i can tell, the only

benefit that the project sponsor has been able to make is that it makes some side of the fence with the consistency of more homes. i might suggest a nicer fence. the project sponsor writes that nothing short of the project with zero development of state street would satisfy these opponents. i have not met with them myself and i have to ask have they considered this statement given the steepness of the slopes. some people look at empty space and instantly want to fill it. underdeveloped is the word they used but there are many of us a very few of whom who are here today that don't see it that way and some of us believe what makes this city special it's managed to maintain a decent amount of urban greenery and wild life.