Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Through Lot Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and developer clash over Ord Court through‑lot project; commission approves one lot and continues the other
Summary
A long-running discretionary review for rear-lot development at 22 and 24 Ord Court generated intense neighborhood opposition focused on tree protection, lot coverage and shadow impacts. After hearing expert testimony and alternative site designs, the Commission approved the conditional use for 22 Ord Court and continued (intent to deny) the rear-lot 24 Ord Court matter to Nov. 19 for further review.
The Planning Commission took up a highly contested discretionary review on Sept. 24 on a multiparcel proposal affecting 22 and 24 Ord Court (through lots with State Street frontage). The proposal seeks new rear-lot construction and interior expansions that would exceed a 55% lot-coverage threshold and therefore require conditional use authorization under recently enacted interim controls.
Neighbors objected repeatedly in public comment sessions that the plan would eliminate significant open backyard space, risk two mature Monterey cypress trees on State Street and produce excessive shadow impacts on adjacent properties. Neighbors and neighborhood groups (Eureka Valley/Corbett Heights) proposed a compromise: consolidate most new development on the 22 Ord Court frontage (or reconfigure to add two units at the front of 24 Ord Court) while preserving the trees and the open, terraced backyard character visible from State Street.
The applicant and project architect presented shadow analyses, structural schemes to protect tree roots (pier foundations and a 12-foot setback), and an explanation of technical constraints caused by steep lot topography and existing building footprints. The applicant—s team argued that proposed rear-lot layouts were necessary to provide code-compliant and habitable units on the sloping lots and to meet the owner—s program.
After extended testimony and technical exchange the Commission acted in two parts: it approved the conditional use authorization for the revised proposal at 22 Ord Court (finding the submitted design met interim-control criteria and neighborhood design concerns were substantially addressed) and voted to continue (and signal intent to deny) the 24 Ord Court rear-lot conditional use, setting a Nov. 19 return. Commissioners urged the parties to pursue compromise options and for project sponsors to consider revisions that would reduce impacts while preserving housing capacity.
The Commission also discussed variance pathways and the ability for the sponsor to reapply with revised plans; staff noted a revised application materially different from the denied proposal could be considered within the one-year reapplication period.
