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

designed by the same architect. the architect becomes the face or substitute for developer because in many cases developers are presented by their architect or in this particular case as additional go power as the lawyer who basically takes on the role of explaining the project. so having said that for clarification, i do believe that the project which has been brought forward by this particular architect and i have seen a number of them always basically result around a very similar discussion and it's not in this particular case of rear yard variance but mostly 12 pounds in a 6-pound bag. i'm going to say it very simply and what i believe the project could be dense find. i do believe that in addition to

having one small unit on the property, the art is in how you do it. that is what i mostly hear people talk about. it is not exactly that this development but that this development in addition to be excessive asked for a variance and that's where i think it's a real lack of skill that really occurs. let me take this a little further. the issue of housing, how we identify supervisors wiener's legislation, supervisor chiu's legislation all deal with issues which are doable without causing too much neighborhood character or neighborhood disruption. in this case i think we have something quite different. i think we are having a project which by

five end impact on the overall development grain is indeed doing something which is already pretty much illustrated by the construction site we are seeing down there. the fact that some commissioners argue with the fact that we need housing. we need housing in every category of housing and since unfortunately we do not have any laws which do obligation these homes to have famous with -- families with children because we have these large units on the market and we don't have any guarantee with people buying them live in the community. i rest my case. in addition i don't think the

units that are currently executed are particularly exciting. i don't think they are particularly skillfully designed at least on the exterior and on top of that, i would like to ask mr. kevlin the submittal as of this morning that as a complete in submittal and you have been in front of us many times before to provide the community, the commission with the 3-dimensional depiction as always asked for and in more of the 3-dimensional character of the overall development where this lies. this is really too much to ask for. >president cindy wu:

commissioner hillis. >commissioner rich hillis: i think people are arguing a little bit on both sides of this where 53 pushed the mass to the front and had the two 2 units on the front which is what i'm hearing people want to do is move some of the mass to the ord court side which i think would have a major impact on the ord court. there is too much of a mass being proposed on these lots. if you look at the 22 side there is over 5700 square feet of building mass being proposed on the ord court. to me the justification of the variance is that you would have modest size houses on both sides of

the lot. i agree with commissioner richards as lopping off the top floors of both those structures on state street in kind of preserving the mass which you are doing on the 24th side of ord court kind of makes sense, it kind of preserves modest size instead of moving all the mass on the 4500 square -square foot to the unit onto ord court which is inappropriate onto ord court. that is my take on it, i would like to hear from the zoning administrator because i know there is an issue with the zoning on the state street side. i know there is a mass and we have to reduce it. i think

state street could take buildings. it's an architectural wonderland with buildings being built in all decades to the kind of you see the massive buildings up on museum and they have the backyard but there is also some large structures on state street also. so, that's where i would like to head on this and would like to see architectural differentiation between the buildings, the two proposed buildings on state street. i think they get a little bit too much on state street where even though they are on two lots it looks like this massive building even with the smaller two floor buildings ends up looking large. the both sides, both lots on state street. do you want to comment? >> yes. as stated this was presented

an a variance to me in august and the neighbors were expressing their concerns about the project, and at that time i understand the concerns that they raised. i also see the point of the project sponsor and the hardships i am mposed by the topography of the lot and you have an apartment building essentially on both sides, an 8-unit building and 4-unit building and the project to the east the garage at the very rear of the residential building because it sneaks up the hillside there and seeing that doing something that maybe they can do something that would be code complying that would add the dwelling units that may still require a variance but adding onto the existing buildings did not seem very practical when you have

a through lot like this and would call for or encourage an exception to a lot development. in which case the lots don't qualify and the variance is required. a variance could be justified for this location however i have concern about the overall scope of the overall project and neighbor project proposed here would not be one granted a variance. seeing there is willingness for everyone to get together and discuss alternatives and i'm happy there was some discussion and alternatives discussed and i'm disappointed it did not carry it through and not before the commission here today but removing that third story would be more acceptable in terms of the variance and what came to light at the hearing was

the tree issue and that i did have questions and concerns about. i know the department of public works is very diligent in terms of reviewing applications and they only remove trees when it's been warranted and there has been a hearing on it and they may make a decision and that will be appealed to the board of appeals which gives me a little bit of pause honestly in having a decision right annoy. -- now. i would be really hesitant to having a project used as justification for removal of the tree if that were coming down the line. so those are my thoughts now. i think a variance can be justified for this location not what's currently before you, removed the third

stories would be an improvement on that. i understand some of the concerns about maybe having staff look at the design. i under why the residential design team supported this design in the project. i see it complies with residential guidelines but also i think there may be some revisions necessary in order to address this variance issue. >president cindy wu: thank you. commissioner fong? >> >commission vice-president rodney fong: okay, so mr. calvin, can you show us what proposes getting rid of the floor, can you show it what it look like? >> thanks for the question. let me say i think this is a completely appropriate discussion and it's not the first time we talked about removing the third floor. i think it an appropriate discussion.

back when we proposed it to the neighborhoods over the summer, this is what we redesign and we don't tv -- have the layout for the whole building. removing that type of square footage creates an awkward layout for the house. if the commission is going in this is direction with removing the floor i would propose to doing more excavation to make the design work. >> have you thought about asking for variance for getting rid of the garage and leaving as much square footage and not having to put cars in there? >> i don't think that's been considered at this point. >> i think given mr. sanchez'

reservation about making decisions today, i think we should propose a continuance. it looks like we shouldn't come to a decision today if the zoning administration doesn't feel comfortable. >> i would take this matter under advisement and the pending outcome of the tree removal would render a decision at that time. that's one option. if the commission, it's fully in your authority, if you do want to continue it, i would suggest some specific direction. >> i think i heard if we get rid of the square feet on the roof on the floor we are all okay. that's what i would propose. >>commissioner kathrin moore: commissioner hillis made a point about

architectural variety to distinguish all buildings so they don't look like a project. that means all kinds of thing, that's change of materials, change of administration, overall building, etc. it seems to me that if indeed there could be a new project given the tree situation that this project might need to be continued in order to come forward on its own merit with the conditions of the comments made by the commissioners including the very important decision about the trees with the new project. >president cindy wu: commissioner fong? >> >commission vice-president rodney fong: essentially yes, you beat me to it on the same page of a continuance. i don't think you want us to redesign it for you at this hour. but just to reiterate the direction i'm hearing this commission would like to take is the removal of the third

floor, the removal of the garage, two different expression of architecture separating them so it doesn't look like one large project and probably leaving the tree as possible. i know that's not ours. >> i think if the tree is deemed healthy. >> i don't think there could be a project with the tree, given the location of the tree. it pretty closes to the property line and i don't know how the building can be designed with the tree. i think it would be with the outcome of that with the hearing and appealed to the board of appeals >president cindy wu: i think i heard commissioner richards say to explore the desirability of the

garbage. commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: >> i agree with commissioner hillis and moore so they don't look like the same thing. that's probably the easiest and in terms of the variance, mr. sanchez, the variance has to do with the depth of the structures on state and the structures on ord not with the height of the structures. >> both structures are located within the required area of the yard. >> no matter what we do with the height, we know it's going to need a variance. one idea we might propose is we really don't need that lower floor although that doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference because you need the structural elements down there, but perhaps you need a way, the

cars would go down a grade and your garage would be somewhat subgrade but that would allow you to have three floors and your grade maybe a few steps from street level, you would lower it significantly but you would still have separation of floors because otherwise you are going further out in the back which would cause more problems trying to take up more of the space in between. while you can explore the possibility of not having a garage. i think being up there in the middle, i hate to say it, you are a long way from any place. it's going to be very hard if someone does have a place to put a car or two cars up there. it wouldn't be my choice if i was buying something and then i think when we do

continue it maybe a time when we can get more of a decision on the tree issues. in a month maybe we can get closer on that tree issue. the other question i have for commissioners if we are talking about taking the floor off or removing down in height on state, but how about ord, is that an issue or not? when i first looked at that, i kind of said it's too bad that the smaller house where the elderly couple is if that didn't have the same number of floors and we kept the other one on order, they don't want to do that. i would be more in favor on the floor off order than completely eliminating that upper level or state although dipping the whole thing down would help to bring the profile even lower

than the adjacent homes and making less of an impact. those are some of my suggestions. >president cindy wu: commissioner hillis? >> >commissioner rich hillis: just a question about the variance. one thing about granting the variance is is you have to keep the modestly sized homes but what would prevent someone from increasing the massing more. could we condition that as part of this, how does that work? >> you can add conditions however appropriate but once there is a standard variance, the condition on that that states further expansion on the property would require a review to determine if a new variance is required and certainly any expansion of the rear buildings those are required in the rear yard would require a new variance and also with expansion of the new

buildings. if there are specific concerns to the front building and if you didn't want the front building expanded any further perhaps you would add some conditions, i can't think of it right now, but you would want the condition that would prevent from further expansion. >> could you require with another variance? >> from the fact that the variance is granted from the same lot we would look at the front building as well and make a determination if a new variance is required. >> correct. i think that's appropriate given the justification for if you are allowing them to build in the rear yard because because we are not taking that much. we are not allowing, no increase in one side of the front building which i think is important. just on the garage, i think ord is a lot more difficult to park than state given the

curb and how it works and they are very much different neighborhoods. it's hard to get from one to the other. i would say look at the park. there are lots on the other side of the lots. it would make for a better design and better on the street. i would encourage to look at that. >> i would not on top of that looks like existing lot can house two cars in a garage. >president cindy wu: commissioner johnson. >commissioner christine johnson: i'm supportive of a continuance as well. generally speaking i'm not, i like to come to conclusions but all the factors that we are discussing leads to a higher probability that even if we are able to come to a decision today, the project would not look like that because there is too many other

things that can happen on the other side of this meeting so definitely support a continuance. i will quickly give what i think. in terms of the garage, that was one thing, mr. sanchez that i was going to say as well. looks like both buildings accommodate 2-car garages and the first floor of the ord building had some storage space behind the 2-car spaces and there is definitely an opportunity to consider no matter the architect decision on the additional floors. i just want to point out my views on things that i would be supportive of potentially for project redesign. so let's go on the extreme example where the tree is fine and needs to stay there and you

would building around the tree which is pretty cool. i have seen it before in the world, but let's say you don't want to do that, project sponsor, i would be supportive of looking again at ord court and look at a building with multiple units that are zoned rh 2. if you are landscaping or doing something with the rear yard on state street side of that lot, a community could potentially be compelling to have a building on ord court with more than 1 unit. don't throw that out the window. i also think that on state street property, it could potentially be compelling to have some level of excavation to account for the floor that i agree should probably come off the top of those two buildings and i also agree the two buildings on the

state street side should be differentiated and actually i made this comment before when we commented about differentiation on the completely different project, if you are going to make it different, don't just change the color, make it separate buildings. that's my comment on the design. and if ord court ares if you are going to keep it to one family unit. i think this wasn't as clear. i would want to see the top fourth floor come off that building and again you can do some reconfiguration and you have the 2-car 2-car garage. if you are not doing the two 2 units i would want to see a shorter building there. >> commissioner moore in >>commissioner kathrin moore: i think the commission has given

enough creative suggestions. i think it's making sense to continue if you can't talk yourself out of architecture. i just hope that the tree issue will be resolved one way or the other. if it is resolved. so be it. i'm not sure what the timeframe is but i think it easily takes another 3-4 months to get this done. >> commissioner richards? >> >commissioner dennis richards: the house in question, 24 ord court, that is probably an affordable house. my fear is we are going to be coming back with a variance to build a monster home there for the couple that i hope live for a very long time but

when they are not there, that it should be modest. >> that could be part of any variance decision whereas the finding granting the variance to the small size of the building. >> that's wonderful, thank you. >commissioner michael j. antonini: i would also suggest to the architect to design something with the remaining trees. and if the it could be to the area where the tree is not and they both come from that curb cut behind the tree below grade a little and the other go in the other way and that might allow you and then you would have the one house would be behind the tree, they would be masked by the tree and they can still have their

entrance there and the other house, i wouldn't let the garbage dominate the design but to have them both come through the same wider curb cut to get a wider in the front and maybe a duplex. >commissioner dennis richards: one last word. fw they want it for their children, so be it. >> commissioners, if you are talking at a 1 month continuance you are looking at january 8th, however you are full, if you are talking 3 months, you are at march 5th. >commissioner michael j. antonini: i would move to continue to february 5th. if the project sponsor

feels they can work something out in that amount of time. do you think it's doable and we can have some tree information. okay. february 5th. city clerk: on that motion, commissioners to continue this matter to february 5th. >commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner christine johnson: >commission vice-president rodney fong: >president cindy wu: >commission vice-president rodney fong:. that motion passes 6-0 and places you under general public comment which i have no public speaker cards. >president cindy wu: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. meeting adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >>

♪ >> thank you for coming to the talent dance performance and talent show. [ applause ] >> today's performance and talent show. ♪ >> public recreation has every bit of the talent and every bit of the heart and soul of

anything that any families are paying ten times for. >> you were awesome. good afternoon. welcome happy holidays welcome to city hall today, we have a wonderful announcement but let me put it in some context for you and quite candidly it is personal for a couple reasons one i don't know if bernard tyson knows this i like the number 5