will increase once these lots go forward with construction. vice president garcia: does the planning department permit include the six -- the six trees? i am talking about what you intend to plant. >> i will ask the architect to handle that. vice president garcia: am i mistaken that i read somewhere that six new trees would be going in? is that part of the permit that was approved? could you change your mind after this hearing and not planned those trees? >> sorry. that is part of the permit that has been approved by the planning department and dpw. vice president garcia: thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez?

>> scott sanchez, planning department. just to clarify, the proposal is for three new single-family dwellings. each of the buildings will provide two off street parking spaces for the use of the residents. the existing building will remain as a single family dwelling. it is an rh-1 district. in the future, they may be able to subdivide the lot. but that would be through subdivision and demolition of the building. that would have to go through the section 317 process for loss of a dwelling unit. i am not aware of plans for future development of the property at the corner. to clarify, i am available for any questions. vice president garcia: i am confused. it seems mr. gladstone said

there would be two new curb cuts, three houses, three garages. >> there is actually a net gain. there would be three of street parking spaces with three curb cuts required. that would provide two off- street parking spaces each. the current plan would probably result in removal of one off- street parking space. we are looking at a net gain in each case of one additional parking space. vice president garcia: thank you. president goh: i am sorry. your time has expired. if commissioners have questions for you, they can call you up again. >> commissioners, the matter is

submitted. president goh: comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i would offer a little historical perspective, as i have been known to do. when i was at planning, the first residential district that had a residential design guidelines accepted was west would park, which is not far from here. that height limit was 28 feet. it went from 40 to 28. merrill loma park -- miraloma park wanted to adopt the exact same guidelines as set for western park. it never came to fruition, but

if you look at this project, which is 22 feet and, i guess the attitude related to height has changed. i will continue and add my comments on my take of this particular project. i think the project is contextual in scale and in terms of design. i think it is totally suitable for the size lots that are there. vice president garcia: i guess my comments would have to do with the fact that, first of all, i am very familiar with this neighborhood. i do not live far away. but i took umbrage at the fact that -- i did not know who it was when i read the brief.

i have just learned it was commissioners moore, olague, and sugaya, who said that the western neighborhoods had given their pound of flesh to housing and so the eastern side should now do so. the permit holder was talking about the fact that the appellants were nostalgic for some suburban feel to their area. first of all, the word nostalgic, when it originally entered the lexicon -- it was psycho pathological -- psycho- pathological. it had to do with home sickness that was pathological. it has been softened to mean appreciate -- appreciation for the past. both comments go to the issue of neighborhood character.

to me, that is what the planning process is all about -- preserving neighborhood character. you are going to be disappointed with where i go with this. so i think that the commissioners, if they stated that they thought this project should go through because it would balance the scales of density to another part of the city -- i think that is entirely the wrong reason to have approved a project. i am going to assume, not having seen the staff report from planning, that the reason they approved it had to do with the same comments mr. sanchez made here tonight, the same comments that were made by commissioner fung. it is contextual. it is consistent with that particular neighborhood. it is an infill. it is going to in moderately

increase the density there. -- immoderately increase the density. it is consistent with residential design guidelines. despite what i consider unfortunate comments having to do with the fact that this neighborhood wants to preserve the character -- that is what i think most neighborhoods want to do. i think this is consistent and will preserve the character of that neighborhood, and i intend to uphold the permit. commissioner peterson: i also live on the west side and value the single-family sensibility and neighborhood character we have there. in fact, when i first read the briefs i thought was -- what was at issue was a big multi- level building. i was pleased to find these were single-family dwellings. maybe they are smaller, which makes them more affordable.

they have parking. we need affordable homes. i think these are family friendly. we need families in san francisco. i see nothing technically wrong with the permits themselves. i also would uphold this permit. president goh: i agree with what has been said. is there a motion? commissioner fung: i move to uphold the permits. >> to uphold all three permits? on that motion. to deny all three appeals and uphold all three permits. president goh: aye. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> commissioner hwang is absent. the vote is 4-0.

all three permits are upheld. president goh: we are going to take a short break.

>> welcome back to the june 8, 2011 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are calling item 10, thomas ballinger versus the zoning administrator, protesting the granting to kelly kryc up a lot variants adjusting a property line between two single-family homes to follow an existing were

defense -- existing wood fence. mr. ballinger, you have seven minutes. >> i am a resident at 285 mullen avenue, across the street from the lots in question. i was unable to attend the variance hearing. i sent a letter with my objections to that hearing. i believe the variance was granted without attention to the demerits of redrawing these property lines. these small buildings across the street from me were formally outbuildings of a larger victorian house that were split off from the property about 25 years ago. they were evidently garages,

because there are three curb cuts that remain, facing the two buildings. perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, they were converted into small residences and have been taken care of and rented out for all the years i have been there, which is 35 years. the proposal to redraw the lot lines makes sense for the new owners. they have a common agreement and can separate their property and enjoy the full use of separate properties. i am not completely opposed to this idea. but i am afraid that allowing this to go through without any restrictions will let these very small lots develop into large, buildable properties, which has a lot of problems for the neighborhood, which is already

very congested, full of small houses. one of the points i want to make is these will be the two smallest lots in the area. this has been a point of debate in the briefs you have read. the project sponsor has provided a list in their brief of the four lots they believe are smaller. three of those have in fact been combined with adjacent lots to make one buildable area. effectively, these lots no longer exist. they have been built over with larger structures. the only small lot is 810 feet. it is the access point for a drive that belongs to the adjacent house.

they retain a small lot to give them the use of the city and access to their house. these will be, if the variants -- variance is approved, the smallest lots in the area. the other contention is the off street parking space will be removed. in fact, the parking space has been compromised already by the creation of the fence to show where the new property line would be. until three years ago, that fence did not exist. that driveway was still marked by a curb cut, by double opening doors wide enough to permit a car, and was able to permit off street parking. the property line proposed in the variance would no longer allow that because the fence has been built in the middle of that parking space. in addition, there was a serious

flaw with the notification process in the neighborhood. the notification as posted said the property was rh-2. that is incorrect. it is rh-1. this was corrected less than four days before the hearing, and no re-mailing occurred to the neighborhood that this was in fact an rh-1 property. finally, i am not opposed entirely to allowing the owners of this land to have rights to maintain and keep up their houses. but to imagine that they could build a 35 foot tall structure on a less than 1,100 foot lot is completely odious.

the opportunity that has been given them has been to build in the backyard of another lot, which should have been an open space offering several buildings. i urge you to accept this appeal and if not deny out right the variance, place further restrictions on the ability of the property owners to enlarge their building size. thank you. >> thank you. ms. kryc. >> i am going to use the overhead. commissioners, thank you for your time. i am kelly kryc. i am speaking on behalf of the owners of the prort