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