the subdivision and new construction at 203 los pal los -- pal mose, to be an appropriate development for the following reasons. first, the zoning administrator has analyzed the proposed subdivision in detail and has determined that it is fully code compliant. the planning code allows properties that have their frontages within 125 feet of intersections to be 1,750 square feet rather than 2,500 square feet. this is not an abnormal development pattern throughout the portions of the park that are zoned rh-1. this section of the code is not however applicable to those portions of the park that are zoned rh-1-d. san francisco is facing a housing shortage. in the older established rh-1 districts, particularly those on the west side of town, there are very knew opportunities to add new housing without demolish depifting -- existing housing. one way is by subdividing large underdeveloped plots. by allowing new plots to be

created, it allows the creation of new single family dwellings. third, the proposed dwelling is appropriately scaled and designed to be compatible with the surrounding development. the height of the building and its stepping patterns respect the laterally sloping at that pog are aify. the depth of the building is consistent with the established development in that it is shallower than both adjacent buildings. the top floor of the dwelling has been pulled back from the rear walls in order to reduce the height of the building and the building's proposed design and overall commissioner veronese: knack lar is not mimicking the past. with regard to privacy, the residential design good j -- guidelines note that some privacy impact should be assumed with development but that unusual privacy impact should be mitigated. seeing as there is more than 40 feet separating the house from the 203 los palmos property, the department does not find

there to be any unusual privacy impact and last, the majority of the qur's remaining concerns are not planning department-related issues. the department's residential design team has reviewed the project and finds it to be on balance, consistent with the general planning code and residential design guidelines. the r.d.t. does not find the project to contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. however, it has determined that this warrants a full analysis. under the commissioner's pending legislation, this would be referred to you since it contains new construction on a vacant lot. nonetheless, the department recommends that you do not take d.r. and approve the new construction at 203 los palmos as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions. thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor. excuse me. this is the d.r.

d.r. requester.

>> is there a clicker to the slide? i have short arms. >> i can make the other microphone work fow -- for you. >> thank you. my name's anita taylor and the three proposed new homes all adjoin my lot. and i wanted to discuss this project and oppose the project on the basis that the structures are inconsistent with the prevailing lot size

and the home size within the neighborhood. the zoning exceptions for distance within a corner for substandard lots also states that the prevailing pattern of lots, etc., within the neighborhood be considered when granting exceptions for zoning. and in particular in this area, these represent the smallest lots, the largest homes, the smallest setbacks with virtually no yards, exploiting the existing green space, providing none, but exploiting the existing green space that's owned, maintained by other taxpayers in the vicinity. there's an apartment-like building appearance to the back of the project which looms over 40 feet high, owing to its being three stories and the grade of the hill which is very, very steep and punchouts on the back of the building reduce the minimal setbacks that already exist. this is a graphic, a power

point graphic showing the predominant lot sizes within a 300-foot perimeter of the proposed development and as you can see, there's one lot that's under 1,800 square feet. there are only five lots in the entire area that are under 1,900 square feet and in fact, there are three times as many lots over 2,500 square feet as under 2,500 square feet. the lot sizes in the park are extremely large and the houses are very modest. what's proposed here are large houses on minimal sized lots. a lot smaller houses, you'll be shown, evidenced by the developer, that there is small lots with minimal setbacks within the neighborhood and they are, they are, but they're few and far between. to point out that across the street from the project there are very small homes but they're on very large lots. they range from 1,065 square

feet to 1,287 and right next to the project, the ajissent home to where these new homes will be built is 1,427 but that lot is over 2,500 square feet. we also have over here three very small lots on the first block, the east side of los palmos. these very small lots which are actually 2,200 to almost -- over 2,200 square feet, all contain very small setbacks but very, very small homes. the homes are 1,000 feet to 1,200 or 1,300 square feet. again, modest homes on modest lots. over here we have lots that appear small on stamford heights which also adjoin part of the project. these lots appear small by indeed they're over 2,200 square feet. they have very small homes, the homes on these are about 1,600 square feet with the exception of the corner which is 2,226.

these lots appear small but they only appear small because the predominant lot sizes within the neighborhood are over 2,500 square feet. down at the lower end of forester, closer to the boulevard where it becomes the sunny side neighborhood, we have a long row of very, very small lots but they are over 1,800 square feet but the houses on them are only 1,045 feet. they're very, very small, modest homes. in the immediate subdivision there is no instance where the living space footage, square footage, exceeds the lot size square footage. such a relationship between the lot and the living space is more in keeping with an apartment complex and i would contend that these, quote, three single family homes are indeed an apartment building in the guise of single family dwellings. as far as the request that i made earlier in the year to the developer of mitigations that were supposedly granted to merks i asked for a two-foot

setback on the upper level and they offered 18 inches. i know that a lot of people quibble and get in trouble over six inches but it angers me that i asked for such a minimal change in the project and that they quibbled about that two-foot setback. that set me off and that led me in the direction to ask for and also to represent my neighborhoods who also feel that this project is out of scale. we asked that the punchouts on the back of the building be removed because they reduce the minimal setback even more, 17-foot setback became an only 14-foot setback with the punchouts and we felt that the offers from the developer were token offers, that they were not meaningful mitigation. in the interim, once this became a force, they offered many more modifications. but it was too late in my mind. here's a picture of the -- president miguel: thank you. >> to illustrate the size of the project.

thank you. president miguel: speakers in favor of the d.r. >> ladies and gentlemen of the commission, my name's ed kelly. i'm marleyried to this lady -- married to the lady that just spoke with you. i want to share concerns in attempting to preserve the character and the nature of the area in which we live. we love and share this neighborhood with an amazzing bunch of people. it's a very close group. and we find ourselves at odds with a group of four investors who for honorable reasons are trying to maximize a profit from a rather speculative real estate investment.

while these issues of subdividing current two very large lots into four tiny lots takes advantage of an exception to the minimum lot size requirement, the letter of the law is probably very well satisfied, using some creative lot division techniques that they've done. it clearly violates the spirit of the law that seeks to -- and we'd like to seek to improve the integrity of our neighborhood's geography as it is. one of the proposed lots appears to be about 30 square feet bigger than the absolute minimum which is probably about the size of this table here. within the confines of the park , you find several small homes on very small lots. you also find some nice midsized, moderate sized homes on very large lots. now, our intrepid group of

investors is seeking to put three homes between 23 and 25 -- 2,300 and 2,500 square feet. this is clearly, i believe, in the words of yourself, a very dramatic change in the neighborhood dynamics. where i come from, this ratio of living area to lot size, might call it an apartment building, by similar twisting, zoning and planning works, you could probably build a wal-mart in west portal and call it uncle sammy's variety store. we respectfully ask that in your role as asher tos of balance and fairness in representing the interests of developers, neighbors and the commission of the city, that

you consider the facts carefully and decide that the overbuilding proposed by the investors would be a serious precedent-setting event in dividing real estate in the park. i had another paragraph but thank you for your attention. i appreciate it. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> good evening, president miguel, and members of the commission. my name is kasandra, fourth board of directors of the improvement club and our 2,200 home constituency. los palmos is one of three proposed buil

this exemption is allowed under the planning code permitting smaller than stand -- standard lot sizes. want to emphasize that our opposition is based on the subdivision of this large lot and not on the design of the home. the parcel has already been legally subdivided into two lots. the project sponsors will proceed with the subdivision. all allowed by the code, the

small lots to not match the scale of the prevailing on sizes. these maximize the lot sizes. the house will shrink from a garden thus reducing the value of the property thus depriving the block of a greenbelt area. as stated in the letter, this is

one of three proposed buildings. >> are there other speakers? >> am here to read into the record letters from two families. this is pending review by the planning commission. this is case number2008. we live at 246 directly across

from the development. we have some issues and we would like to bring to your attention some projects to consider. not only are they trying to build three houses, the proposed houses are very large. there is no reason that they cannot use the setback on existing houses. we have not seen anything to enjoy these concerns. there is an impact on the residence of the area. construction will take two years. we will be directly exposed to many months of loud noise and

heavy dust. we will have to contend with tree closures and lots of access from our garages. there is no commitment to coordinate with the neighbors to try to minimize the impact. they would be considered on how they would be impacted. we hope that they will encourage the developer to modify the proposed developer.

we have been joined the garden views. the previous owners. did it desert garden. if they are approved, the options of a garden would be eliminated. >> thank you. are there additional speakers in favor? >> i was contacted after they had filed the d.r.. i think there are two things at work here.

these are fairly extraordinary circumstances to create three new buildings. i think there is a matter of policy that this commission should address before allowing this to go forward. how much subdivision will be allowed? they have cited a section and they have said that these are within 125 feet of the intersection and these are permissible. the section requires that the entire street frontage be within 125 feet. these are up to 184.5.

this is short of meeting the code requirement. it measures the same as it does from the heights. the second issue is one of the subdivision the code section that allows these very small lots, well below the minimum, if you are within the distance of the intersection, i don't think it was intended for this kind of area where you have a lot of hills and kurds. -- curves. i have some materials where i'd

designated some larger lots that surround this area. as you can see, this lot could then support two or four units. this could support two units. with the minimum entry way for any lot at 16 feet, there's actually advertising in the neighborhood that are urging people to purchase these large lots and to subdivide them. how many units can you put on this lot? this is across the city. >> thank you. are there additional speakers in favor? if not come apart a sponsor.

>> good evening. i am with limestone and associates and we represent the project sponsor. due to a number of concessions, and adjacent neighbor has withdrawn his request and another decided not to file. several other neighbors to support this project. they have agreed to many points but that it cannot be agreed on some of the issues that were raised. you will see how the white said it lowered at the request of the neighbor across the street as an example of one of the compromises that has been made. they say that this does not meet the dimensions because they are not within 125 feet of the

intersection. the request is challenging a lot that is the furthest from our property and is not the subject of this. this has not been due to critics calculation that these lots are proposed. the code says merely that only the with must be within 125 feet of the intersection. an interpretation requires a lot to have an area within 125 feet. this makes it more difficult to meet the requirements. we meet the requirements. the lot size is inconsistent with the surrounding months.

on the overhead, you will see that there are several surrounding lots that are less than 2500 square feet and seven that are the same size or smaller. there are also several divisions that resulted in similar sizes. the alternatives of creating two instead of three with one building would not allow for three modest family sized tomes. this would not be consistent with the patter most lots are 25 feet wide. it would not be comparable or consistent with the surrounding homes. the d.r. request your suggested that this is not consistent with the building pattern. over 80% contain detached homes. the requested claims the product is inconsistent with the surrounding lost because the unit sizes are larger than the lot sizes. they are asking you to create

new design standards, specifically that the home sized should not be the lot size. to ask that such a rule be established is not appropriate and this would a great development in family size housing. this focuses on a new development, not unisize. the project is consistent with the development pattern in all aspects. this is consistent with a lot size pattern and with the surrounding building height. as you can see, the steps down is on a hillside and is similar to the surrounding buildings. this is consistent with the open space as well. this is less than the depth of the building finally, the project is not require any variance. this is a project that could be approved as a matter of right. the project will not impact the

privacy of the request there. the view is parked on the ground floor by a fence and the existing trees on the upper floors. you will see the addition to the proposed -- is 46 feet. the d.r. request your's home has been in large. our client has agreed to build a fence and maintain the trees that blocked any views. we hope that this expansion will not affect the construction of the buildings adjacent. engineering issues that have been raised will be addressed by the department of building inspection, however we have our engineer to address any questions. no extraordinary circumstances has been shown. no variances are required. the project is consistent with

the neighborhood. this involves development and will create a modest family size tom's. this is an opportunity for a neighborhood to share the city's efforts, therefore we ask that you deny the request. >> speakers in favor of the project. >> commissioners, i am the project architect. i would like to clarify several items. first, the building is 42 inches, this is not over 40. for the second item, i would like to clarify the size of lot.

the interpretations show the graph right here and they indicate a lot was 1750. this is from the street corner. for an area outside of this, it could be part of that large lot area. that means that this cannot be less than 1750. this cannot be more than 2400. this has been used since the first day that i walked into the planning department 26 years ago. we have been doing this.