i can have tv's to any channel they want. if they want to watch sports, they are allowed to turn to sports. there is freedom. they are allowed to change any sport game. most of my customers are young people. they are starting uc-berkeley. if you think i am not right, i have to follow lost business. president chiu: any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor? ok. let us hear from the appellant with a rebuttal of up to 3

minutes. >> i will keep this very brief, supervisors. you have the planning department, the police department, the lawyer for the former owners, north beach residents. we are asking you to hear our voices. king of thai is currently in violation. president chiu: this hearing has been held and closed. i will put this in the hands of the board. supervisor camospos, i am going to ask if you could share this portion. thank you for sharing this particular hearing. obviously, we have heard from members of the public about how this establishment has changed the character of this part of

north beach and negatively impacted the quality of life of residence in my district. we have also heard from the san francisco police department about significant safety issues that have been plaguing this part of my district for a long time. in fact, i think it is a good reason why we ought to consider alcohol mitigation fees so that we can get more resources to properly police an area that has been over saturated with liquor licenses. i think what is most compelling about why we should reject the cu is what the planning department has told us. they have told us that during the process they failed to provide the commission with the regulatory history about this property, information about the current operation of the property, and other information that was necessary to understand why the cu was in violation of

the planning code and the board of appeals conditions applied many years ago. it is unprecedented from my perspective that the planning department staff is asking us to reject this cu. i think the fact that the department just issued another notice of violation on october 1 -- i think it is another reason why we need to find the cu was issued in error and must be revoked. i would like to reject it, table item 27, and move items 28 and 29. supervisor campos: the motion is seconded by supervisor d ufty. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor daly: aye.

supervisor chu: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aywe. supervisor mirkarimi: -- supervisor maxwell: aye. >> item 30 is a public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the department of public works and dated september 7, 2010, approval of four lots at a project located at forrester st.. item 31 approves the tentative parcel map for the address. item 32 is a motion disapproving the decision of the department of public works and disapproving the tentative parcel map for the address. item 33 is a motion directing the clerk to prepare findings

relating to the decision. supervisor elsbernd: based on advice i have received from the city attorney, i have to ask to be recused from this item. i do not own property within the radius, but the situation is directly behind my house. there is a potential project that will be impacted by the issue of the lot size being wrapped around the corner in the same neighborhood. i think it is an issue of neighborhood character and would impact the project. because of the potential material impact on my property, i would ask that you accuse me. president chiu: there is a motion by supervisor dufty, seconded by supervisor chu. we have before us an appeal for

the tentative parcel map at 0 los palmos drive. we will find with this is consistent with the general plan or any other specific plan that may apply. we will first hear from the appellant, who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds of the appeal. we will then take public comment from individuals that support the appellant, up two two minutes per speaker. we will hear from representatives of the department of public works and the planning department who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their decision follow. we will then hear from person speaking on behalf of the real party of interest. finally, the appellant will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal. why don't we proceed to hear from the appellant? you have up to 10 minutes. >> good evening, supervisors.

i live at 246 los palmos drive, across the street from this project. i have with me petition signed by 37 neighbors, if i may enter them into the record. we believe the main issue here is the predominant lot size in this neighborhood, which is what should determine whether this subdivision will be permitted. merrill loma -- miraloma park is comprised of small or medium homes with large yards and a lot of green space.

less than 5% of the lots in the area are under 1800 square feet. the subdivision plan also requires that any at sub- standard lots it with the current predominant lot size of the neighborhood. the only way this subdivision is being permitted is because of the rule that says if you are within 125 feet of a corner, you can subdivide it into substandard sized lots. that same rule states it must be consistent with the predominant lot size. that is not the case in this area. nowhere in this neighborhood would you find three substandard lots adjacent to each other, which is what would be the result of this subdivision. if this project is allowed to

proceed in its current state, it would have an extremely detrimental effect on the properties in the neighborhood. it would totally change the characteristics. one of the main characteristics of miraloma park is the large number of lots with a green spaces, large yards. this would set a bad precedent. it would allow other developments to proceed. they would be destroying existing green space in order to build houses on substandard sized lots. the current law used to house a world-class a garden consisting of unique and exotic plants. these plants were removed from this area in order to enable this project to go through.

the other issue that we have is with the surveying of this property. this subdivision meets the guidelines by a matter of inches. we have been trying to get our own surveyors to this property so we can make an accurate assessment of whether this subdivision meets these guidelines. we have not been given the opportunity to do our own surveying. in addition, we are going to be facing approximately 2 below years of construction. most of that is going to be heavy construction. we have requested to get an environmental impact report because of the type of work that is going to be going on. it is quite steep and it would require major reinforcement of the existing foundations of the

neighboring houses to support this development. the resulting project would in no way to integrate into the existing homes of that neighborhood. one of the draws of this neighborhood is the ability to have large yards. the current situation is that when news of the project was announced that the planning commission, where a sign was placed at the existing lot that would indicate pending construction of the home, several homes in the area that are for sale, the buyers would turn around and leave once they saw that sign. current neighbors to have been trying to sell their property

are unable to do so. most of the issues that i have raised can be mitigated if instead of subdividing this area into four lots, the subdivision is into three lots. it would allow for construction of three new homes with sufficient green space and allow the retaining of some of the existing foliage and trees, and at the same time reduce the impact on the neighbors. there will be an adverse effect regarding existing parking. i understand that we are guiding our residents toward reduced dependence on

automobiles, but in this particular neighborhood most of the neighbors are elderly, and they require use of their vehicles. our current bus infrastructure has taken a hit when the cuts were put in recently. the distance to the nearest bus is several blocks of a steep mountain climbing, which is not feasible for all the residents. we are going to be facing approximately two here's where approximately a whole block of parking will be removed from this immediate neighborhood. this road is a main through fair for everyone who lives on mount davidson. they come down the street to get to monterey boulevard. we believe that if the scope of

the project was reduced it would allow the developer to store materials and equipment on the existing space and be able to complete the project in a shorter amount of time, reduce the negative impact on the existing neighborhood, and allow for developing homes which have yards in green space that is consistent with the existing look and feel of miraloma park.. we are concerned that if this project is allowed to proceed it would be used as something of a trojan horse to totally change the characteristics of the neighborhood. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to the appellant? why don't we hear from members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant?

please step up. the speaker shall have up to two minutes. >> my name is karen breslin. i am president of the miraloma park improvement club. we represent around 2200 homes in that area. the proposed building is one of three proposed buildings on a currently single-family lot which has met with considerable opposition from neighbors in the area, although i noticed in some of the material that there was something that said there was not any opposition except one person. that really is not true. our letter to the planning department was dated june 29. you should have that on file. our opposition is to the project because of the lot sizes, which are smaller than the standard lot sizes of 2500 square feet,

which is the standard. although this exemption is allowed by the code, it does not match the prevailing lot size throughout the area. these houses will maxed out the standard sized lots to 75%, rather than the usual 55% to 65% prevalent lot. this will result in unprecedented density of development in the area. this does not conform to the built environment and violates established character of the neighborhood. the rear yard of the existing corner house we are concerned about because that is going from 90 feet to 15 feet, reducing the value of that property as well as depriving the block of its greenbelt area. a big concern is the greenbelt area in general.

losing that will affect the environment, the air quality, and quality of life. many of these homes in the area are built very close together, but they were all provided with green belt. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is mj parker. ms. taylor is traveling and asked me to read the following letter on her behalf. she would also like a copy of the letter distributed to the supervisors and placed in the record. "i object to the subdivision of the two lots into four substandard parcels. miraloma park is zone rh-1 and

rh-1d. the predominant pattern in the neighborhood is lots in excess of 2500 square feet. there are scattered sub-standard lots, but no place where these laws are imposed adjacent to each other. the creation of the proposed lots hinges on the inclusion of 1750 square feet within 120 feet of the corner of the property, which extends 3 feet beyond the 125 limit. the legality of this lot hinges on the manipulation of the other lots, carving inches here and inches there out of the two more easterly lots so that a shift of three to 6 inches in the property line would render 213 out of bounds. this kind of manipulation illustrates that the proposed subdivision, while marginally legal, violates the spirit of the code and the character of

the neighborhood. the appeal and selling point of these homes is large lots and lots of green space. the proposed lots and homes to grade the neighborhood and offer no enhancements. these lots violate predominant housing patterns, exploit neighboring properties and so that when new homes have almost none, neighboring lawns are maintained and the taxes are paid by others. we are not into development, but the scope of this --" president chiu: think you very much. next speaker. >> thank you for this opportunity for me to voice my concerns. i am otis morgan, 141 robin hood drive, sherwood forest, an adjacent neighborhood to miraloma park.

there are 2 below great losses that can occur if this bill is allowed to proceed. there is going to be a loss of architectural continuity, structural, and landscape architecture. there will also be a loss of value during a very hard economic time of the properties adjacent. the loss of architectural value in the landscaped area has already been brought up by people who have come in front of you before. open space will be lost. there will be none. there is also going to be structural problems that will be taking views from homes that are adjacent to this new construction. the use of the south bay will be lost. hence the loss in value that is already occurring in homes in

the area that are going up for sale. these are losses i would like you to avoid with your constituents. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> president chui, members of the board, for the good of the city and county of san francisco, i believe it is vitally important to maintain the character of the many unique neighborhoods we have. our little neighborhood is unique in the fact that we have a lot of very large lots and very beautiful tiny lots, particularly tiny lots all stuck together. the proponents of this project are interested in doing what they call in-fill housing, which is building houses between areas where there are existing houses,

particularly in corner areas. it is a great idea, and i support the concept but for the fact that this proposal seeks to drastically change the prevailing character of our neighborhood by sticking marginal sized lots, one next to the other. other than that, i happily support the project and sign on. for the good of our amazing city and the unique nature of our neighborhood, please, in your roles as gatekeepers, take a long look at this proposal and recommend that two houses be built in this unique area instead of three. we have demonstrated we have about 3240 -- the previous speaker said 37 signatures on a petition. there are four investors that do not live anywhere near their that already have substantial

real-estate holdings. this is a test case. if this is approved, you are going to see a lot of these coming before you. i believe somewhere along the line there was a mention that the project needs to be consistent with the general plan. keep in mind this is a test case, a trial balloon. thank you very kindly. >> i am rod guthrie. i live at 860 forrester st.. i strongly oppose this project. this is allowing three homes that really -- in a space that should only allow a complex of two. the prevailing lot size, as you have heard, particularly with corners involved, are quite large in our neighborhood. the guideline is set at 2500

square feet, but most are much larger than that. as far as i know in talking to neighbors, there is no place in miraloma park with three lots this mall adjacent to each other, although one or two might apply with the developer's plan. the addition of the third home will add a much greater density to our neighborhood, more traffic flow. and it takes away from the book. it subverts the intent of the homeowner guidelines we all try to comply with and to preserve the look and lifestyle of this old and established neighborhood. we are also concerned about the stability of the geology of this area and the natural underground and water flow. this particular site for construction was subject of a major landslide back in the forties and has a tremendous

amount of underground water flow year round that undermines the stability of the guards and fences downstream. we have not been giving -- been given any engineering or hydrology reports documenting how this large volume of water that flows through will be handled over time and what impact it might have on foundation levels for houses above and below once you disturb the current geology. we have attended earlier meetings that oppose this development. thank you very much. president chiu: next speaker. >> my name is joseph derico. i live directly across from the development. my main concerns are loss of open space, the views. it is going to open up the president that it will

drastically change the neighborhood. we're going to shoehorn these homes into a smaller lot. that is basically it in addition to whatever else has come before us. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> thanks for the opportunity to speak. i will keep it brief. it is getting late. pretty much, this project will change this whole neighborhood. my great uncle actually built this house on the corner. mr. and mrs. jewell lived there and collected cactuses. that house set the mood for the whole neighborhood. if you stick this in between there, it is going to change the whole neighborhood. they are going to be sticking these buildings everywhere. nowhere in the neighborhood to you see anything like that. it is crazy.

they need to put two, not three. it is ridiculous. it is totally out of proportion. there is that part. there was a half mile wide mudslide in the forties there. my concern is that something this big -- i would like to see structural drawings and how they are going to take care of this ground water, because it is an underground stream and i do not think they are ready to divert the water, in which case there would be neighbors at risk. basically, this project does not belong in miraloma park. president chiu: next speaker. >> my name is tony. i live at 18 stanford heights avenue, just around the corner from the proposed project.

i feel this is the wrong proportions for the neighborhood. i lived there 7.5 years. part of the reason we bought in that neighborhood was the good sized lots and open space. this is clearly too much house for one lot. i would like to see only one house built there, but two would be better than three. there are concerns about the underground water that have not been addressed. it seems out of place. the architecture seems ok for the neighborhood. i have not seen the latest drawings. i am not opposed to that. but i do not think it is the right thing for our neighborhood. it is too much density. it is going to impact traffic and a number of other issues. i am just here to back everyone else as well in what they have said and i hope we get heard.

president chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? seeing none at this time, why don't we turn to our city departments? i know we have representatives from planning. you have up to 10 minutes. >> good evening, distinguished members of the board. i am the city and county surveyor. this application was made in april 28, 2008. we deemed it submit double may 2, 2008. -- submittable may 2 , 2008. planning approved it. we issued a tentatipp