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 tentative approval. >> i am from the planning department. the dpw did enter a subdivision map. this project currently is two lots on the corner of forrester and los alamos drive. the plan was to merge these lots in than to subdivide it. there is an existing house that will be located at the corner lot.

there will be three new single- family homes located on the other three parcels. the three parcels are in with 49 feet at the corner, 24.8 feet, 28 feet, and 28.5 feet. these parcels to meet the planning code. they are completely code compliance. i would like to read a brief technical issue about this. all four lots are located within 125 feet of the intersection, and each lot measures at least 1750 square feet. under section 121 of the planning code, each lot is at least 25 feet wide for the portion of a lot that measures 1700 square feet. there is an interpretation that states if a lot is deficient by up to a quarter of an inch, which is 1% of the required lot

with, it is still considered to be a 25 foot wide lot. parcells b and c, the middle parcellss, measure less than the 1% deficiency. therefore, we rounded up. all four parcels to meet the planning code requirement. they are 25 feet wide for three of them and 49 for the fourth. in terms of the pattern of development in the neighborhood, the lots are zoned rh-1, which is residential single-family. it is not zoned rh-1d, which requires that a house stand alone on a lot. this enables the property owner to build the whole width of the lot. that is also the pattern of development in this neighborhood. we looked at that very closely.

there is no variance required. this is code complying on the subdivision as well as the new buildings that are going on the side. there was a dr filed on this project and on the august 5 planning commission hearing, the commission voted not to take discretionary review and to upheld the planning department decision. scott sanchez is here and can speak in more specifics about what increments and rear yard requirements if there are any questions. thank you. president chiu: any questions? supervisor alioto-pier: i do have some questions about back yards. if you would not mind, i would like a better understanding of the neighborhood. i was under the assumption that this part of miraloma was mostly

single-family detached homes. as i understand it, the three that are going to be built will be attached. >> good evening. scott sanchez, zoning administrator. the predominant pattern here is the full-lot being developed. these are not detached dwellings. on at least two of the other corners of the properties, the lots are substantially smaller. the are taking advantage of the same planning code. this is a pattern of development on the corners of properties. i would further argued that this will actually preserve the mid- block open space because the lots that are being developed here will be a little bit shorter than some of the adjacent lots.

with a yard requirement of 29%, they will not be able to build back much further. there will not be further encroachment. additionally, the pattern of development viewed from los alamos would be consistent. you would see properties of roughly 25 to 28 built to the width of the property lines. this would be consistent with what is on los alamos currently. >> out of curiosity, are there any rules about how far out the building comes to the lot line? >> there is a front set back requirement based on the average of the adjacent properties. the project as proposed here are compliant. and they are using the average of the existing buildings along los alamos and the corner

building at forrester m loss alamos. there will have the minor setback that is being proposed. supervisor alioto-pier: 43 lots that will be built on, they move into the corner house's backyard? >> will you repeat that? supervisor alioto-pier: the 3 lots that will be developed -- do they move into the corner house's backyard? >> the modification needs to be made to the existing building at the corner. they had to remove part of their expansion into the rear yard to have a code compliant rear yard if the addition went through. the work has already been done. the portion of this building has been removed. they have a code complying rear yard. the buildings are set back a few feet from the front of the

property line in respect to the existing pattern. >> this is the site plan of the proposal. these are three new lots. this is the existing house. this is going to be the fourth lot. this is forester. this is los alamos. the existing houses there -- this is the larger of the two lots. the three other lots -- as you can see, what we do is kind of complicated. i am not that good at it. we kind of average the distance between the front property lines of the adjacent properties and come up with his average. that is where the front property line needs to line up. there is a minor setback in front of each of these properties. they are taking up the entire width of the lot. however, they do have required

rear yard space. obviously, the corner lot has a lot of rear yard. if i may put this down, this is a map that that is highlighted in green. these are the four parcels we are talking about. this is the existing house. these are the three new single- family homes. there is a lot of green space throughout the neighborhood. there will be remaining green space in the rear yards that will still enable their to be plenty of open space, what we call the dog not of a block. the planning commission found this was sufficient -- what we call the donut of a block. the planning commission found this was sufficient. president chiu: are you finished? supervisor campos: -- supervisor chu: just a couple of questions

from the department. this item is not a conditional use or an eir. this is an appeal of a personal map. we need to consider whether we are taking a look at a proposal that would be consistent with the general plan, whether the site is physically suitable. you spoke a little bit before about the fact that primarily what we are going to be seeing is single-family homes being developed in an area that is a predominately single family location. you spoke a little bit about whether it is generally the nature and feel of the neighborhood that you have these attached homes. i think your answer was that there are examples in the neighborhood. is that correct? >> that is correct. i do not have the map in front of me. there are a lot of attached homes, particularly in the long blocks, forester as well as the

other street, which is stanford heights. there is an extensive pattern of detached homes. we did find that. i want to also know we did find that this subdivision is compliant with the general plan, particularly with the housing bill -- the housing element. we found it was compliant with policy 1.4, which is to locate in-fill housing on appropriate sites. that came up at the planning commission hearing, the fact that the west side of the city does not have a lot of opportunity for development. the commission was happy to see there were going to be three new single-family homes constructed on the west side. policy 1.7 is to encourage and support the construction of quality family housing. project 8.9 is to encourage new

home ownership opportunities through construction that increases owner occupancy but does not diminished rental housing. policy at 1.5 promotes existing housing that enhances the neighborhood character. in total, the commission and department found that because -- with the subdivision of this lot into these elements, these policies could be met and fulfilled. supervisor chu: just a question about the size and bulk of the proposed three buildings or three homes. are they generally -- it seems from pictures i have seen that they look fairly consistent with the house -- with the height of surrounding homes in the area. you are not seeing a home being proposed that is much higher than other ones? >> no. the houses are actually extremely consistent with the

pattern out there. it is basically one story over a garage. they are modest houses. it is consistent with the pattern of development out there. they are not going higher. supervisor chu: a final question. a consistent thought that was expressed by many of the individuals who came to speak today was about how this could set a precedent that this would be potentially a pervasive issue. what are we seeing in the miraloma area? are there tons of these open lots where we could see this occurred? >> we actually are not seeing a lot of applications for this type of proposal or subdivision, mainly because there are not a lot of development sites on the west side. this neighborhood is particularly developed. that was one of the reasons the commission was excited about this project. we were able to get new single- family homes.

i think that hopefully answers your question. president chiu: any further questions, colleagues? why don't we now move to the real party and interest for a presentation of up to 10 minutes? >> good evening, at supervisors. brett gladstone. i would like to think the planning commission. they voted 7-0 to approve this. as you probably heard, commissioners olague, sugaya, and moore were particularly excited to see new families on the west side of the city in code compliance lots. that does not see a lot of new construction as the eastern side does.

they talked about how there should be new homes spread around the city. i wanted to show here a map. in blue, here are the lots in question. in the white, you see single- family homes which are detached, which have side setbacks. we calculated it. planning did too. 80% of the lots in that area have no room between the homes. they are not attached. there are a couple in white that are. neighbors are always understandably afraid of change, but my client is only creating two new lots, not four. we are merging two and creating four. the lots are very oversized. one is 53 x 60. one is 39 x 30.

it is not an exception to any code. no variancees, etc. the city is getting three new homes for only two new lots. it is a good deal and an efficient way to use property. it is necessary if the city is going to see in-fill housing. these are quite small. they range between 2320500 square feet. these are not monster homes. -- between 2300 and 2500 square feet. these are not monster homes. what our architect did do is reduce the height of the building so people across the street have a view that is now between 2.5 and four feet lower than the buildings that were initially presented with. some of the neighbors across the

street withdrew their opposition as a result. the appellate did not. there is a disagreement among them on that side. on page 6, the appellate mention the potential to use -- to lose property value. what you have to keep in mind is my clients are developing a very overgrown, maryland 3900 sq. ft. lot. we do not understand how that reduces property values and reduces the neighborhood character. property values are not protected, of course. the appellate thinks that one fewer lot and fewer homes should be created because of what he calls a lack of city services in the area. we are not sure what he refers to. it is really the eastern side of the city with the residents

moving into former industrial areas that are lacking city services. for that, the board has widely adopted the eastern neighborhoods plan and its government -- in its development plans to fix that issue. the appellants as there are no yards or green space in the project. that is not true. we provide as much regard open space as the lots immediately next door that our existing. -- that are existing. the miraloma association agrees with one issue, that there should be one fewer lots. they liked the design and the heights and everything else. although most lots are 25 by 100, small ones are not unusual. we counted 191 lots that are less than 2500 square feet on

the 27 blocks closest to the subject site. appellant proposes two new lots of about 38 feet in width instead of three lots. the lots uphill from us, here, with existing buildings, are only 25. if ours were 38, this is what they would look like. they are not consistent. they are not the pattern. it would result in large buildings and would not necessarily give side yard setbacks. the objection here, ironically, is that there are too many single-family homes that we propose, but it is a single- family neighborhood zoned for the single-family home. the appellant and the neighbors say the difference between adding two versus three lots

would greatly change the traffic, parking, and noise. we believe the difference would be negligible. what we do not think would be negligible is the fiscal impact of my client for creating two new homes instead of three. mike plant balance sheet for this project will not look good enough for lenders if all the costs of land acquisition and construction is spread across two and not three new buildings. the new homes would have to be quite large to pencil out, and a larger would be less affordable and would be less consistent with the district homes. thus the neighbors do not get more open space to look at. they did not get the side yard setbacks which the planning department and planning commission did not want here. the appellants says we have no

independent corroboration that our survey is accurate, but as they told you they have not hired a surveyor in the three months since the planning commission hearing to provide any facts that do not support our surveyor's work. that has been independently checked by the zoning administrator, the building department, and the department of public works. if there is a surveyor they have hired to say otherwise, it would have been nice to hear from that person tonight. you have heard that a fault 1750 square feet each of these lots must lie within 125 linear feet of the corner of forrester and los palmos. the planning commission does not believe a lot lies outside of that. it is icing on the cake if that

is what we have here. we are confused about all this discussion from the neighbors about a zoning exemption for a zoning variance. this requires nothing of the kind. the neighbors are proposing the code in this area be changed so that 1750 square foot lots are no longer possible. that may be a good idea, but that is done through planning, through in parliament to review, and to notice to owners. changing rules in the middle of somebody's investment and somebody pay for work -- and somebody's work, and putting the city to work on something that is code complying and then deciding the law should be different -- it is neither fair nor does it make sense if we are going to encourage people to

build new housing in and the areas of the city such as these lots. i would just like to show exhibit them of our brief. -- exhibit m of our brief, the planning commission brief. the rear yard open space behind our proposed match exactly that of the existing single-family homes uphill from the law we have today. here you see in green the rear yard open space of our lots, which comply with code. our space is in the green. net finishes up my presentation.

i appreciate you're listening to it. i hope we do not send a message tonight that lots that are code complying should be ignored and should be thought of as open space that is owned by the neighborhood. it is not. it is privately owned. this is just the kind of very fine-tuned development that we need. thank you very much. president chiu: colleagues, any questions? with that, why don't i see if there are any members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the real party of interest? at this time, why don't we move back to the appellant for a final three-minute rebuttal?

>> the reason you do not have the surveyors report from us is because we were not given permission to have access to the property. we requested this several times. as you saw in the previous map that was put up, the back yards of these new houses will be approximately 25% the size of the existing backyard of the adjacent homes. the existing green space the developer refers to is everybody else's back yard, not theirs. they are taking away green space from this area. the overgrown empty lot the referred to was, as i said earlier, world known, featured in the sunset magazine until it was stripped nine months ago by the developer.

the general policy also refers to the fact that any new development must enhance the existing neighborhood character, which this project is not going to do. again, as the representative from the planning commission specified, the width of the lots, 25.948 feet -- that is why we insist that we be given a chance to get an independent surveyors report of the slot where it might be shown the measurements are not as accurate as they seem to be. when this lot was initially subdivided, we were told by the planning commission that the existing law was large enough for three new homes. approximately eight months later, that was changed to a request for a subdivision to four lots. that was the first time we found out, when we met with the

developer. at that point, they told us at the neighborhood meeting in front of many witnesses they would need to get a variance for the existing house because the backyard would not be large enough. then one day we find a bedroom was removed from this house to qualify this lot for the subdivision. when is the last time in san francisco's somebody shrunk their house? that is why we feel this development is going to set the wrong precedent for this neighborhood. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to any of the parties today about this appeal? seeing none, this hearing has been held and closed. these matters are in the hands of the board. supervisor chu: thank you, president. the item before us today is whether or not to grant the tentative parcel map for los

palmos drive. it is not an eir or a cu. it is pretty clear we have to take a look at pretty clear parameters. one is whether or not the proposal is consistent with the general plan. from the comments i have heard from city planning, it sounds like this proposal is consistent with the general plan. we have to see whether the site is physical is suitable for the type of development, whether it is physically suitable for the proposed density. we have not heard the site would not be able to accommodate the development or the density. it is going from a single-family neighborhood to single-family homes being proposed for the site. the next issue is that we are supposed to consider whether the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage. we have not heard that from any of the comments