And the initial application preapplication hearing in october of 2013 so first in objectivity of 2013 as you can see those are the two structures on state street the rear of the property here those were third floor and secondstory not differentiated from each this was an original presentation the preapp meeting computed included the renovated expansion of the court next as you can see in by the variance hearing there was response to the neighborhood concerns a reduction in one of the building down to 2 serious stories the other than was that stories and at commission in 20159 other building was recused in response to concerns the project team heard from the commission and then finally we get to the current proposal the renderings showing two buildings with the presentation of who mature cypresses trees and the project team has come up with an Initiative Plan signed off by and arborist to protects so those with a setbacks 2 it order court that is the home that protects the trees has a 12 foot setback and recused the skoormg as you can see open slide perhaps hard it is a suspected driveway and walkway it is a Initiative Project and it protects the trees and we worked with the oovrt arborist to have a Protection Plan that thank you. Next speaker, please. Comfortable with and hope to preserve those trees thats the structural kind of basis for that plan here this is 22 order court now a 6 foot setback on this property to representative the 12 foot on 24 order court rear and aized footprint and 22 order front no changes the total expansion is only 8 hundred and 24 square feet a might have to provision finally the court is not part of the project no plans whatsoever to expand this beyond the envelope that slide is not updated mr. Tilly chang wants to only probably do minor interior alteration there were elderly tenants living there theyve passed and they not given up possession before you, you soon after he gets position will go and maybe interior modifications not structural not part of this project not able to see inside the house but wanted to represent it to some young people that need Affordable Housing well have have more to say if you have questions moving to outreach there is neighborhood involvement into october 2013 a number of responses for frankly have been concerns weve heard over time and at first, the real focus on views over time reduced 3 stories to 2 to trial to accommodate those concerns as you may know true preservation was a concern weve added there Initiative Work and now a Movement Among neighbors to actually not have development on state street or limit development on state street to what weve seen in recognition to a chius weve done to go out to the neighborhood radius and do a real compass we have a good half of people unavailable on the pie chart 23 percent of people stored or supported the project or neutral or positive not jumping up and down in support at a hearing but 20 percent were neutral and counted 14 percent opposed so we can say safely the neighborhood is split youll hear from a number of people that are opposed but a difference of opinion as a result of the offer outreach in the community over the last few months additional outreach one with the Land Use Commission and the Neighborhood Association one with a representative the Corona Heights and with the discretionary review Applicant Group we provided the commission yesterday as tina mentioned letters of support and a packet available in hardcopy and as tina mentions theyre available and finally id like to talk about where we are now and the most recently question we received in neighborhoods to come up with a project not needing discretionary review that mass both the 24 frontage as opposed to to the street footage and this relates to the conditional use requirements require that the commission find that if it is going to grant approval for greater than 45 percent lot coverage i need the lot infeasible without exceeding 45 percent coverage so tina mentioned one definition of feasible and one a synonyms for being used or dealt with successfully and merry yes, i am weber stare is likeable which people hear infeasible under noting no probability can it happen but the dictionary says it has to be suitable and reasonable that means infeasible is not likely or suitable this is important to keep that frafrmd would the Commission Want to prove brave those under keeping with the citys policies getting into the percent lot coverage it is simply infeasible e feasible to add the unit without studying 55 lot coverage very significant sloping as you can see this is a steeply slope to develop any usually Square Footage theyre lost the Square Footage if up and down state street down to lower levels a lot of Square Footage is lost you end up with a house that takes up more of the lot that repeating really is the prime reason it is infeasible to develop a smaller footprint and in addition the exist singlefamily units coffer the significant Square Footage the lot youre not dealing of dealing dealing with that much Square Footage youll see from this diagram this show you the highlights a large number of multi proopts are rh2 or rh3 developed with dwelling units based on a quick survey is clearly above 55 percent lot coverage there are we didnt have time to identify those but as you can see a large number of these actually are already developed in over percent lots finally another request pie fables to mask two units that is infeasible and we did a whole studies of American People alternative that would do just that it showed from a shadow study an entire study this shadow study is is from 6 50 a. M. Substantial blockage of light and shadowing other than the building on the become left savior shadows up to the Property Line that has few windows for the units theyve developed on this frontage would that cast shadow and eliminate open space on the middle of those lots on both parcels it is infeasible to develop ill be happy to talk about that more later. Okay opening it up for Public Comment. Good evening commissioners im chris parks i would say in the neighborhood for nearly 10 years you must be tired of this project therefore attempted to approve anything youve spend o spent so much time were suffering like you, we have fulltime jobs and other purities but have felt time and energy and thought weve invested over years for decades into care of for the neighborhood that is open space and smallscale and we work hard to see this project was incorporated into the new sgrrment legislation for two develops were written by us are for project in from the property project is approved no point in the sdprrmz so we ask you to project to look at this project under the standards of legislation to save the open space in our neighborhood an august 12th we met what was a fair compromise given the requirements of new legislation the fact the new legislation specific applies to Pipeline Projects and findings of harding park and the simple fact it was a process before the new legislation was written may i have the projector please. Thank you this is just a very simple proposal youll see it here displayed the neighborhood to support this postage the two 0 lots not the other with an one what about code compliant and two units will be allowed on both lots and moma the feasibility eir availability i dont know any neighborhoods that is opposed to adding Square Footage to our neighborhood i the president to add ill apply some additional signatures over 67 signatures garter and also some additional materials to sport what we want to say i expect other speakers to talk about details just to give you within sort option for how that layout this is one with you have two units added to im sorry two units added on both sides it could be done a might want way i ask you to keep in mind if this legislation means anything it cant be approved that make a mockery of new legislation thank you. Next speaker, please. Quart here. Commissioners good evening i live on state street in the neighborhoods for over 3 nature years i wanted to say that to approve today is kwufbs makes the new legislation useful as it was written in parts for in and in whole for projects just like this the section of legislation it applicable to those lots see page four of the interim controls line quote that the Planning Commission in considering a conditional use authorization in a situation where an additional new residential unit is property on to through lot which an existing building on the footage will only grant it is unfeasible to add a unit to the lot the owner states why putting two units is infeasible he states is it so inner feasible it build do units on the either Court Building each lot is 25 feet wide and go steep to build two units we have to ask ourselves whether two units are on loves over three feet i dont think so are all unlevel lots and nonoccur on steep lots i dont think so those feasibility are ridiculous you putting two units is entirely feasible thank you for your time. Good evening my name is mary ann ive lived on this court for over thirty years and practiced law in San Francisco during most of that time quite a bit the case law for the civil courts cases they hinge on whatnot the developers professed scheme makes that developer more money all of the courts have dismissed that standard but rather by give consideration economic and social and he technical metrological whether a pursuant Property Owner will precede with the alternative so here we would ask if you were to disapprove the new building on the court would a resemble prudent owner precedes and a at the front or that owner to see that is infeasible the owner will not precede given the turning of the buildings from one unit to 2 units occurs all the time in San Francisco the objective answer is yes, a reasonable prudent owner will proceeded to turn a current house into two units if so commission disapproved the new building at the rear of the lot on the court at previous speaker noted the lot with the typography didnt prevent the edition the sponsors Rachel Norton that is infeasible to add a second unit because the new proposal casts a shadow or block light into the court is simply not true and laughable the current this on court sits within the side of the building and thirty court so therefore there are currently no entry points for light into those two buildings from the east side of the courts additionally the developer sponsor here as proposed two building one each at the rear the 22 order court and one in the rear of this order court both will cast huge shadows into state street your supporter dont believe what needs to be built is any less than 4 units that is the same amount as the developer were talking about the standard is a alternative that make sense in the context of the neighborhood the same number of Housing Units by the developer but medium size and not oversized thank you. Good evening, commissioners im Joseph Butler i have thirty years of experience as a license architecture designing residential dwellings the neighborhood living in the state Street Project engaged any services to determine the feasibility of having two flats at either 22 or 24 court i made a variety of sketches one was turned into the site on the screen that show us the buildings can accommodate a second unit with minimum shadows cast the standard lot and 65 feet of buildable makes it as 2, 3 bedroom flats i understand the proposal before i for both variance and conditional use involves with only who 22 order court front and wraer and the rear yard behind it facing states street the existing building on 24 court has been left out of the application goous boosts location of the open space and the two monterey on state street as well as the steepness of the site the common sense compromise to have two units at 24 order in the front building without development and rear and two buildings on the 22 order court site as we show you dont have the authority to make the developer produce two units at 24 the front building you certainly have the authority to disapprove the proposed building in its rear yard from the developer then choose to come back with a proposal to turn 22 to two units on two levels over the garage with minimal shoovd we can do see, however, they dont have to more disbrawl is supported by the fact it is feasible to develop two units at the front of 24 order court and this is the key standard to determine this can i it is necessary and desirable for the neighborhood i think that four family sized units has shown in the site plan two 4 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms go to guess the necessary while saving the open space and making the project two combined 55 percent lot converge or coverage is desirable while the lot coverage on the building with on the site with two buildings 55 percent didnt require a variance and together they only come to 54. 9 percent will the coverage feasibility is clear thank you. Good evening, commissioners my name is ricky live at state street and in the neighborhood for 8 years i want is im glad the developers after having to disclose the trees and later at the first hearing the trees were unhealthy now see the light and the trees are healthy and in fact, preserving thats the good news the bad news in anyone knows the proposed house will keep those trees as is are foolingism the project sponsor shows the trees in light shading it was hard to see how much it will block the house if built it is had a as huge window looking at the trees and 0 so close the trees will reflect the light we expect the new owners will trim the trees our efforts to safe the trees will be wasted one of the reasons behind the compromise it will insure the trees theyll on the the continental approval the trees be maintained wurt the proximate of the house and larger windows no reason for the owners to cause trees damage one tree will be added to the 24 court and the developer will get a separate building at the rear it is a winwin for both sides the developer gets his four units and the neighborhood gets to keep to have the rear yard and preserving the open space and maintaining the views for the homeowners and you visitors to enjoy please issue a winwin not another win for that the developers and a loss for the neighborhood thank you for your time and consideration. Good evening, commissioners i live an order street the project sponsor believes that the current proposal came out of the last meekly that commissioner moore and commissioner richards it would be approved had the zoning control that ruling it would be understandable but today such a rule flies in the face of legislation this is not a 3rd but a hearing other than the quite frankly application a conditional use is not required because of size and lot coverage and the feasibility planning are not required for the lot coverage sxooed 45 percent and for the street frontages the finding the sponsor proposes are inaccurate a 25 foot lot as in their which is the standards with the rh two lot it is saying it is infeasible to put lots is two narrow is infeasible so design a car it only has 4 wheels we need to make the project sponsor is live up to the rules it is only subsequent for the neighborhood and the neighbors that working hard weve bent over background to agree to one of the developments for the cu and variance in challenge for the cu or without the cu or variance what we have proposed is more than fair what the sponsor mass present didnt meet the conditional review feasibility and never meet the harding park and circumstances i perp described 4 hundred and 50 flyers and innovate met a simple person that supports this application thank you. Commissioners good evening. Im tom smith i live on museum way this developer began that project by marketplaces the trees on the plan to having them considered this the tree legislation and the attorney declared the trees are uninhabitant and not put the autobiographies because 25 is too narrow the lots two steep he is a pattern of exaggeration and misrepresentation and guess is the sponsor strategy to wear you down and tired of hearing this case and give up regardless of what it development do ask the neighborhood and the variance requirement regardless of the fact that 22 order court bend from a assistance as a asking for a second bit of an and not meeting the zoning legislation the proposal meets the developer halfway and he gets an embarkment of both court facts this is perch giving away the store and prefered two new units neither would have required a conditional use but for the sake are unity ive supportive of the fees and variance please dont disregard the legislation it didnt comply with the legislation and simply wouldnt be fair thank you. Commissioners good afternoon. Im july 4th will be speaking for myself toy the Property Owners proposed project you know about what it is and leaves the smallest building untouched not having a permit application leaving auto the court once the tenants passed away in april seems like a ploy we dont have highpriced lawyers were not entirely stupid we feel the developer is trying to milk the lots and goals to get the 3 units somewhere and come back and say you know 24 court is tiny compared to the building id like to enlarge that and it is please look at that this is the neighbors have offered the project sponsor to develop order court and to leave the rear of 24 court undeveloped he think you see when is which and the rear of 24 court not developed this leaves the cypresses untouched and guarantee tests survival it you approve that youll approve the various applications and allowing the developer and deny the conditional use for the other lot we can address those order court and but an option a 2 unit building weve told the project sponsor well support another alternative we consider to expand the existing building an order court that one, two, two units leaving the rear yard of order court undemonstrated and authorize the conditional use at the rear of 24 court as the project sponsor would last week this will excessive the goal of preserve open space excepts on the court it