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 ability to construct units on the property would remain available as other projects on the class of district. again i wanted to show the alternative envelope that the project sponsor proposed and i have to

reiterate that this averaging rear zone does not apply to this property. it goes further back than it should. you see there are a lot of opportunities that has additional housing for folks here in the community. and i didn't really focus on this one, but i wanted to just reiterate that you know, rh 2, this comes right from our planning code, which includes these statements, these statements are devoted to one family and two family housing with two large flats one occupied by the owner and the other one for rental. this proposal does not match what's defined in the rh 2 class use of rh 2. there are plenty of options to meet this.

and refocusing back on the property we lost, this was a property next to the museum and you can see this is what our property will look like, this will be 22 ord, 24 ord, this will be the top on state street and the other side of state street. it's going to be sloping up the hill, i'm sure there are dimensional differences and this is a preview of what we can look forward to. this is the plot plan again from the project sponsor. i just wanted to point out what that means for a little bit of yard in the middle. you can see this is concrete wood and concrete and the open space in the middle of the rear yard is not much of green space. it's going to be paved over. this is what we'll see when the project is completed. just

to give you a prospective on that, you can see this this project -- in this project of ways similar. this is a split lot and it didn't require a variance. this 15 -foot yard is going to be a little tavern. it's going to have a retaining wall. just to give you a picture of it. i did want to point out the project, i know it has different owners. this was a development from the same project sponsor. i don't know how you define a project sponsor by owner or agent. this was again sia consulting. they did not disclose significant tradeson the large development. this really robs the people who don't

know what's going on like us an opportunity to know that trees are going to be removed if we are not notified of this. i wanted to show you the tree. quickly i will show you some other properties on the street and then i wanted to point out real quick. this shows just to the west of the property what these properties are. if you look at it from google, you see all of these rear yards adjacent to the property that have the similar thing. well, this is what it looks like from the street. everyone can enjoy this open space. this open space of rear yards at 22 ord court. if you allow homes in this, this is what you are going to get. this is what's going to happen if you apply it to other properties. >> thank you.

>president cindy wu: project sponsor, your rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners. john kimmel again. it seems to be less about the size and massing of this project or that the project is too large and more about a general concern about how the development of their overall neighborhood, during or meetings with proposed to reduce the proposed building by an entire floor and that was offered and the answer was no. again, in their written communications there are mentions of the project but it speaks to the change ing of their neighborhood and their concern is valid. it's a valid point. in this case though we

see the proposed project is not changing the character of the neighborhood nor the precedent setting. again, that's the rendering from state street. the blue and green are the new projects. they are stepping up the street and there is the development in the neighborhood that are of equal or comparable size. another view from the other direction. the blue the building on state street does not stand out as massive or completely out of character with the neighborhood. what this analysis needs to be balanced again is the city and now region's growing housing crisis. if you have to pick a policy with value is the creation of new housing. neighbors of san francisco certainly have the right to

not change the character of their neighborhood. in this case we have a development that is consistent with the neighborhood character and we should not stop our effort with the unwillingness to accept new development. that's what we seem to have here. we propose new modifications with significant concessions and the answer has been no. i want to say we've had the benefit of being able to watch 58 state street come to the commission 2 weeks ago and commissioner wu's comments of more modest generally captures the essence of where this commission was coming from. we have come prepared to discuss alternatives if the commission would like to go in that direction. to emphasize, the project sponsor has already shown it's willingness to compromise and that

willingness continues through today. the dr requesters do not rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances and we respectfully request that the commissioner accept the dr with modifications. >president cindy wu: with that, the public hearing portion is closed. commissioner richards. ? >> >commissioner dennis richards: skew me, -- excuse me, sorry about that. what a marathon. i absolute support house, but i don't want to confuse with monster fiction. we saw this on sloping, that's not the same

project sponsor. >> thank you for the question, commissioner. it's not the same project sponsor. the architect that is providing the services to the two developers. >> i just want to make sure because it could be confusing. >> what projects were considered without the variance project sponsor? >> there was some difficulty with this side. where the project sponsor started was that 24 ord court hassledly tennants that have been there for over 30 years and they have a great relationship with those tennants and they did not want to touch that building and have a negative impact on the tennants. that leaves you with 22 ord and the two lots. it was explored looking at adding the second unit to the building at 22 ord court, but again considering the narrowness of that street and the mass that would have been necessary to create another dwelling unit

on that building did not seem to make sense for the neighborhood and again that also wouldn't get you the 2 units on both lots which is what the rh 2 zoning would allow. this is the next thing considering the neighborhood. >> i have a question for the zoning administrator, if they were to average and push the existing structure back, how far back could they go? >> i don't have exact dimensions. we need to know everything, i don't know if we've calculated that as per their required rear yard. i think one of the claims raised by the public is that the project is somehow not eligible for the rear yard and although it may not meet the

qualifying definitions. i think we need to look at that more carefully. >> we did a quick look at that on the site plan that was provided and the adjacent property as you mentioned extends to the rear and there would be essentially zero rear yard for the property at 21 ord court and 24 ord court the property is 59 feet and the average would result in a building depth of about 82 or 83 feet if i remember correctly which means there would be a rear yard of about 34-35 feet. currently the project sponsor proposes a rear yard separating at the rear structure to about 29-30 feet. >> so it wouldn't be too much of a difference? >> it would be about 45

feet. this is a very rough calculation. >> of course. it's refreshing that you watched the 50 state street debate and hearing because we did come back and as commissioner wu came and we did want something more modest. the offering to your neighbor to the floor brings us down to 1700 square feet. i think that brings us more into modest range which would still be able to be a family but much more affordable to a 25 -square foot house and i will let the others speak to what their thoughts are. i am concerned about the tree. there is not a decision whether the tree is safe and needs to stay and you are going to have construction with 90-year-old tennants. i will defer to my other commissioners and hear what their sense is. >president cindy wu:

commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: >> thank you, i went out yet and did an extension of the entire neighborhood. i started out with the museum just being there many times with my children and grandchildren. but i did notice this very large structure which begins on museum and comes down to state and i will agree that did look pretty huge but it has nothing to do with this project and then i went all the way along to state and got to see the neighborhood context and saw a very diverse architecture. it's not all traditional. many of it is mid-century modern, there is a little bit of everything and many of them are typically above grade and that's much like what's being proposed on there. then i continued down to ord

court and i had to go down to 17 street and i did go across staircase so i did walk up there so i can really see where this would be and see how steep the hill streets are particularly above state going up to museum with very steep lots and also the area from ord cortese -- court up to state is steep too. the adjacent buildings on ord court have 3 stories also, but one of them has 5 stories setback and about 100 feet high. so i think the problem we are running into talking about the size of the buildings. if they are appropriate for the neighborhood and they don't have any noticeable impacts on the neighbors, then if they are a little bit larger it's not

the worse thing in the world. we are not building any new single family homes in this city. we don't have any land. it's too bad we don't own parts in the city, where there are good size family homes being built in the hills out there, but we don't have that kind of land and nobody is interested in getting in the side of the park. we have to do infield housing and a number of homes that are large enough with families with children. fw there are multiple children and you need help. i know generations ago and there are many people who have families crammed on the same level. if you have your choice you prefer a place where you have enough room for your children where you have multiple levels with enough square

feet. the designs have lower levels because you have to have it down there and there is a single room down there and you have a garage level and then you have a former room level, living room, dining room and kitchen and you have the bedrooms and baths on the top levels which makes sense. i have a home similar to that. i think it's nice to have that kind of thing. the alternative, there is opposition to building homes on a vacant lot, but we tried to take a project in the richmond where the supervisors over turned our verdict where we have a home where it was going to be demolished and apparently the

supervisors didn't like that either because they rather have two small homes rather than a home of larger scale. i can see that even though i didn't agree with it. this we have homes built very similar. it was pointed out that a lot of homes on state street have 2,000 square feet already. it's not that exceptional. i think it will do a lot of good things. there is no regular rear yard pattern as we've seen from the maps and there are a lot of places that have buildings on both, i think 8 of the 16 lots have structures on ord and state streets as pointed out whether it's a split lot or not , it doesn't make any difference. the end result is the same. whether you are

calling it, it doesn't change the rear yard and the end result ends up with 20-30-foot space in between on a very steep slope that you couldn't use before and at least you have a usable slope now. in calculating the square footage, everybody is acknowledging these would be under 2500 square feet. you don't count garages. you have to really look at these based on what has been traditionally the case with real estate. when you buy a home, they will tell you how many square feet there are and it's a lot larger because they are not counting on things as square footage. they have set backs on 24 ord and 5 and 12 feet.

and then i pointed out that lower floor has to be there and 22 they have a 20-foot setback with matching light wells. so anyway, it's a difficult situation, but i don't see anything that's that egregious about the proposed development here. i agree with staff, i agree with the fact that want that 5-foot separation that goes all the way through which makes a lot of sense and i don't know that you really gain too much by taking the top off the floor onto state street's property other than making smaller homes which are less friendly for larger family. in san francisco it's expensive. if you want a big home in san francisco, you are going to have to pay for it. i'm sorry it's so expensive, but people with families are going to demand larger homes. if

they can't get it here, they will move somewhere else. we have to satisfy affordable housing, low income housing, we are not building any new single family homes. about the trees, i don't know. i'm going to have to hear the verdict on that. i have heard a couple of opinions, they are fine they just need to be pruned and we have heard they are a hazard. i have seen a lot of trees falling on cars. we need to make sure nobody is victimized in the near future. i see the difference between 53 states in this project. 53 states has some over-the-top stuff and a lot of stuff that was superfluous. this seems like the right design with the right amount of room that makes it a nice

family livable house. i went through the design already. somebody talked about the views will be lost, but views are not protected. views of trees are not protected either. i don't know that it's really a factor. anyway, the variance situation from my understanding is as the zoning administrator, i have to comment, you have such a huge lot required to 45 percent rear yard because of the fact that they are all considered one lot. it's not a split lot, but if you can also allow meeting probably a variance as we talked about is to match the average of the adjacent rear yards with these yards not being less than 25 percent. that is an alternative that's in the code and although it is

technically a variance, it's basically another way of doing it and on that kind of the hill to demand so we have a hill that nobody could possibly walk up and there is nothing there, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. we'll see what the other commissioners have to say. i certainly thing project sponsor has made an offer for modifications but i kind of like it the way it is now with the possible looking at that lower one on ord court to making sure it needs to be as large as it is. >president cindy wu: commissioner moore? >> >>commissioner kathrin moore: it's easy for know hear the comments because everything we observed has it rights to be only table. what i would like to do is clarify what the public said and what is frequently done. the issue i think here is not that the project down the street is not the same developer. the issue is that the project down the street is