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.

state street is a pedestrian corridor for corona heights and parks as well as commuters heading to and from castro station. it's also common to see tourist walking from the castro to haight wondering if they are going the right way. i would like them to enjoy the journey. i wonder if they will continue to come if they continue to fill all the spaces to boxy condominiums. >president cindy wu: next speaker. david aguilar. >> hello, i'm nicholas crawford, board certified with the -- company. i just wanted to provide a quick insight to the status of the two monterey cypress

trees and state street side of the property. the tree removal applied for and staff level it was approved and because of the neighborhood protest triggered a hearing last week on monday. i just want to share that based on my own experience it's unclear whether those trees already set for removal. they are not dead or diseased which would be a pretty clear decision. when there is significant neighborhood opposition to removal of trees. i think it could go either way with the tree and that's taken into consideration as part of this whole project. >> thank you, next speaker? >> good afternoon

commissioners, thank you very much. my name is rick goldman and i live at 230 state street, across the street from the proposed project. i thank you for your time. we have lived in san francisco as where the owner of the property does not live in san francisco. my wife and i live here in san francisco. we love the amount of green space that is on the street prescribed in the brochure that we did buy. i'm and avid bicyclist and serve on the bicyclist task force. i have not seen any street like state street and want to keep the characteristic of state street and castro neighborhood. part of the appeal is the amount of

green space on state street and should been encouraged and planned. state street is close to corona heights park and bird refuge. many birds take advantage of the green space in the neighborhood. i would like to show one of the streets on the project highlighting how the parrots of corona heights take advantage of the trees. three parrots as parts of the flock of parrots on corona heights. i would hate to see these trees removed and affect the quality of the state of this neighborhood as stated in the urban forest plan where the tree canopy is already shaping. i agree the city needs more affordable housing but i don't see how this is

going to improve affordable housing. as i heard in the previous hearing about $1200 per square feet, that would set these houses to sell at a minimum of $300 million. that was hardly what someone would call affordable. this would change the character of the neighborhood and should not be approved. i'm not opposed to putting two buildings on the property since it's zoned r 2. i do not see the criteria that justify the variances be met and ask that you deny this project. thank you for your time and consideration on this project. >president cindy wu: thank you, next speaker? >> good afternoon, my name

is rick aguilar. i'm a neighbor. i fully embrace the remodels that embrace our neighborhood. there are beautiful examples on streets. my support does not extend to the development that show no regard for long-term implications for the neighborhood and the community that contributes to it. i believe this perspective reflect what most residents would think. i supporting the discretionary review request for the following reasons. 400 feet down on state street the same developers current construction already rises 4 stories above the victorian house 2 stories next two it. this leaves me little context to his desires to embrace this neighborhood and culture. we are very

concerned with precedent setting and would like to prevent fueling manhattan ization of this developer. i think it could improve this model without maximizing the envelope. thank you very much. >president cindy wu: thank you, next speaker? >> hello, my name is david canon, i own the building at 209 state street. my building units is 1500 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 4000 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