11,000 square feet, at and at least 70% are effectively 5000 square feet. 27 are conforming out of 38. the previous owner deliberately enlarged his own lot. sorry, i don't think i got a reset. thank you. the previous owner deliberately enlarged his own lot, 75 _ feet. this developer should not be able to take advantage of the predecessor's action for that variants. the slope of a lot also does not justify a variance. all of the properties have the same slope. it creates no hardship for use ofa the use. it variance would not help them. rejecting the variance would not result in any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that is not attributable to the owner.

the current owner may use the entire property. in the space not covered by house is completely usable and beautiful private outdoor space. the third factor referring to nonconforming lots on the street, they are all either grandfathered in when the sun and with instituted or they are conforming with the exception of the one lot, which is a special location next to the avenue. the planning commission has rejected at least two other attempts at zoning variances. the fourth factor, the belgrave neighborhood would be materially and substantially injured. property values are premised in large part on the expectation there will be no new nonconforming lots created. breaking this variance would destroy that expectation do not only to this variants but others that may be granted to to the bad precedent this would create. this project is simply out of

character for the neighborhood. what this applicant is try to do, the proper inquiry would be either rezoning the block, resenting the street, or rewriting the planning code. they're not trying to do that, because that is a whole different debate. i strongly urge you to read correct -- to reject this variance application. thank you. >> thank you. other any other members of the public? >> good evening. i lived exactly opposite the project. you have heard me earlier this evening, so i will be even shorter than i thought i would be. what i'd like to say is you have heard it said there are lots of all kinds of sizes on the street. you have heard it said this lot should be split and made into two. i think one might dismiss that and say, big deal.

in truth, it is a big deal. it is a big deal because we've use zoning as protection, as a way of maintaining standards and neighborhood character. we rely on that. we rely on u.s. public servants to protect our neighborhoods when it is appropriate to do so. should this project go forward, this is the kind of massing we are looking at. this project cannot go forward unless the variances procured. next to this would be 93 belgrave which is now a vacant 25 foot lot. should this go forward, there is a genuine and real threat that other lots such as the one next to this would be developed, and what we would be facing our three houses side by side, quite simply which do not exist today. we are not asking to freeze belgrave in time, but we are

asking development to be done any respectful and considerate manner. thank you very much. >> thank you. i>> i'm paul cassell men. i live at 2 belgrave. the previous spoke of a minor reduction. i would say that it would create a 20% increase in land. it is not minor. there are many others, as she mentioned, that would be waiting in the wings. we are able to enjoy the fact there is no precedent now. if for some reason -- it would be beyond me -- this variants were granted, it would be a cascade of others that would say, well there was precedent here, it is only 20%. the next is 25%. at the other thing that i find disingenuous, which has been

mentioned before, is the audacity of the developers to come and say, we cannot use the other 2500 as their hardship. it is supposed to be a hardship they cost themselves, and as they mentioned, the original proposal used that. we have had neighborhood meetings where i have said, we will do one l-shaped house that uses both and we have said fine. for them not to say they cannot use it -- first of all, they should have known that before they bought it. it is not because they cannot use it. it is because the market dropped. the outside speculators, the developers are in a tough place, but it is a place of their own making. thank you. >> thank you. >> i won't repeat what i said

before, but i wanted you to have that in the public record that my husband, frank, and i are both strongly opposed to the variance. thank you. >> thank you. >> mary, 20 belgrave. i say ditto. i'm tired. >> thank you. >> hi, i'm sarah, 155 belgrave. who are we kidding? this is about money. this is about a developer who got screwed by the market. that is not our problem. he knew full well what the laws are and is seeking exception to the law. i have yet to hear any articulate it reason other than i have a big lot. i did not think that is a hardship by anyone's definition. i would be happy to trade lots with you.

i urge the planning department to simply follow your own rules, that we all abide by every day when we bought our property. we looked at the rules. when i purchased my property, i looked at the zoning rules because my property is next to one of the nonconforming properties that grandfathered in. if the developer did not do his due diligence or more accurately he is changing his mind and needs to make more money because of the declining economy, that is his problem and i do not think that is the city's problem, that is not the planning department's problem. i find it offensive they are seeking an exception to the law that would affect the entire neighborhood, then they sell the property and leave, not caring what the impact to neighbors and the property value and every other person of the street just to make a buck. i strongly encourage you to deny the variance application. thank you. >> thank you. >> one more letter.

my name is richard peterson. the granting of the various requires five findings. this project strikes out on all five. first, there is note exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that applies. the developer fully knew when he bought this property it was not so that for two houses. that is a bogus argument. at second, and the hardships and not be caused by the applicant himself. this was caused by him because he wants to make a bunch of money. it is not the city's job to make sure he makes a lot of money off this project. that is not reason for a variance. the third finding must be made that is not even addressed by the applicant. the applicant has not been denied his right to use the property or upgraded as he wishes. he was not entitled to build another house next door on a

substandard lot. to assert the snout is absurd. fourth, the effect on public welfare. the turnout today certainly indicates a majority of the neighbors believe the development will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. the fact that a know-what split variance has ever been approved since the zoning was put in place in the 1960's should indicate this has been a good plan a decision and now is not the time to create a new precedent for oversized lots, oversized houses built on substandard lots. fifth, its relationship to the master plan. item two relates to neighborhood character and economic diversity. the neighbors of 89 belgrave say this practice not in character with the neighborhood nor will it do anything for economic diversity. the third item relates to affordable housing. this project will do nothing to enhance affordable housing in san francisco.

it will only create two very expensive houses. this project fails on all ground. the result of past planning policy has helped in the creation of a great street and it would be a shame to ruin things by encouraging destruction of a nonconforming housing. i ask that you denied a variance and not create any new precedents for any such project like this on the street. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. i'm michelle, 20 belgrave. i just want to go over a couple of points that the representative made earlier. he talks about a pattern in our neighborhood. he is absolutely correct, there is a pattern, but it was not the one that he suggested about what size. what it is about is green space. he continually talks about what size, but never talks about density.

the average density on our street is 0.5 house to lot. both of his projected projects would be 1.0-plus. i am also concerned about every time we have talked with them, the square footage of the homes have changed. there is not one time they have been consistent. so the number we are seeing today is different from what he showed in the first place. my question is, if this variance is approved, what will the actual square footage of the bill out be? we have tried to work with them. we talked. he came back to us and said specifically u that specifically use one single lot, build one single house, and make his money back. the only reason he is seeking this variance is because he made a speculation, he cannot make

his money back unless he builds the house that supposedly real- estate agents have told him he has to build, massive houses. my question to him is, the rest of the street, we have never had a vacancy, why does he need such a magnificent structure on our street without any green space? i strongly encourage you -- i also request -- that if you have any consideration about passing this variance, think about me and my stock portfolio, because i will ask you to cover that as well, because i speculate. anyway, thank you for your time. please give serious consideration to not passing this variance. it will set a very dangerous precedent for us. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is blamed, and i am partners with john at 89-93 belgrave. this is the third project john and i have worked on together.

one project involves a rear extension, adding a second store it on to the existing story over the garage. the duck and street project with the front porch of the extension on a house that sat towards the rear of an upward sloping lot. it resulted in three stories over a garage. with both of these projects, we met with the neighbors, discussed the designs, and listen to their concerns. we compromised on both and we were able to move forward without a discretionary review on the their product. we have met several times with the neighbors on belgrave, and the designs of both homes have evolved in this process. in this case what has emerged is that neighbors seem to be against change or development on just this project. they were going to file an appeal and discretionary review regardless of our redesign efforts.

we are all part of an urban environment that is continually moving and growing and change is inherent. belgrave is an eclectic mix of architectural styles built at various times over the years. it is not a street that was developed in just one or two styles and a short time. this evolution will likely continue as there are still several vacant parcels on the street. the homes we have proposed to create that this pattern and will add to belgrave's diverse architectural heritage. john and i are very conscientious builders and focus on the details of the homes we have created. we have worked very hard over three years to arrive here at this hearing and i feel confident the homes will enhance belgrave's overall charm and character. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am john. i am the other partner on this. we are striving hard to build

two two find quality homes on belgrave that will be seismically correct and incorporate many building features. the rooflines are similar to many of the homes on the south side of the street and would be an asset, not a detriment, to the character of the street. my partner, wayne, and i have modeled distinguished homes in the past decades or we have expanded the footprint, working together we have found we have compatible skills. wayne is conscientious and meticulous and we have a loyal subcontractors. we have also remodeled smaller presidential interiors. for myself, i took the bank building on 22nd and valencia and added a mezzanine structure over the parking lot. it is now the social security administration office. i have worked extensively and

successfully with the concerned neighbors to address their architectural concerns. finding a property that once itself to the standards we are striving for is a complicated process. we feel lucky are real-estate broker recommended this home to us. after much thought, we concluded that dividing the lot and incorporating an additional would be the best use of the site. i have been maintaining residents in san francisco the past 25 years, and i am ready and willing to work with whomever. thank you. >> thank you. >> caleb, resident 114 belgrave.

i am also a builder of a far less storied past than the two gentlemen behind me. with that knowledge and experience, i say two things, the first being, and the multimillion-dollar home i am remodeling currently with my part. " -- with my partner, we have never had this level of public disapproval and scrutiny, and we have worked in many houses and pacific heisghts and elsewhere that have required extensive variances that been completed in conformity with our neighbors wishes that at and significant respect with exteriors. all of those have been completed with the approval of the neighbors, with their participation. at no point has there been such a breach that we have been unable to proceed without their approval. i find it striking there is such a cleft between the

neighborhood and these developers, and i think a lot of that has to do with the fact that as this development process has gone forward, the discussion has not been one of agreement or concordance, it is one of frustration followed by an acceleration and deviation. typically, you come with a proposed ,l-shaped lot, don't like it, you reduce your demands, like the people did earlier today. you're building that smaller, your demands grow smaller, and you meet the needs of your neighbors, and then you have excited neighbors. some people supported them, some did not. here, it has been the opposite. they start with a reasonable approach showboat -- a reasonable proposal that most people agreed with, and now something happened and this proposal is widely and vastly separate it from the desires of the neighborhood. i think it is a mistake to leave

to consider this to be a process that has achieved some kind of reasonable agreement. you can look at the audience, the way they are separated, to see that. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment here on 89 belgrave? >> leslie, 77 belgrave. we would just like you to consider the five criteria. we feel that is the merits of our case, where they live. not that we feel the developers are bad. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, we move to the project sponsor. you have three minutes rebuttal if you would like to use your time. >> sure. a couple of quick responses. first, the idea of a single- family home, a couple of thoughts about that. long ago, probably three years

ago, this whole idea of building on this lot was always at two units. there is no question a single- family home would fit, but that just did not seem right for the neighborhood character either and that a burst through negotiations moved on and we are at this level where we have two units. i find it hard to believe that in there. that is this concerned would prefer and 8000 square-foot mansion on this lot as opposed to what we are proposing here, which we believe is contextual and it works and that's what the neighborhood. -- and works and fits with the neighborhood. in terms of the hardship, by the law creating the hardship? i did not think that is the right way to look at it. a hardship was created when these lots were merged to create a massive lot in an rh-1 neighborhood in the 1970's.

[laughter] >> that is funny? you create a hardship when you do something, and purchasing it is not the creation of the hardships. these owners have the absolute right to come aboard and as a four variance. we think is justified. there is an equitable decision you are faced with, scott, and i think it is really important. it rises out of the hardship issue, balances, and it also arises out of the fact that one of the findings you have to make is that others in the neighborhood are benefiting from their properties in a way that this order is being denied. john and lainez are looking to obtain essentially what have the neighborhood has, developing one additional home on a lot that is less than 4000 square feet. that is what this discussion is about. that is what you are deciding. that is pretty much it. one of the criteria is very clear. it says you have to decide, you

have seen the facts that shows the variance is necessary for the substantial intimate of a property right, the same right possessed by others in the neighborhood. this is a very unusual rh-1 district. as a hodgepodge of a lot sizes. we are creating a lot sizes that are in between. and have the neighborhood that is represented by this district benefits from those small lots. why cannot john at an that lane benefit from the same thing? >> i have two questions. first, do you have any neighborhood support for the proposal? >> apparently not. >> ok, thank you. and the second lot to the west, i believe it is 113 belgrave, i believe under the same ownership as 155 belgrave, has there been

any discussion about acquiring that property and creating one like that would meet the code requirements? >> yes, i discussed that with that owner, and he had no interest in doing that. >> ok, thank you. with that, we're going to close the public hearing on the item. sir, are you the owner of that property? is it related specifically to that question i asked? and what provide me additional information? it if you could step forward and address that point only, please? thank you. >> the point i wanted to make is the trusty of that property -- is under trust right now because the owner was opposed to this project and he passed away. that trusty is also a signatory of our petition opposing this variance. >> before clarifying that.

i appreciate that. with that, the public hearing is closed on this item. this is a difficult decision. this has been many years and the making. i appreciate everyone's patience been here until 11:00 at night and the three-plus years this project has been ongoing. i believe the project sponsor has made some persuasive arguments to justify the variance in the rh-1d zoning district, pointing out it would be 33 feet wide, which is the minimum width required for this district. also noting the pattern of small lots within 1,000 feet, which is typically what we look at when we are looking at what size variances. we're looking at lots within 1,000 feett. hey are 219 lots. 49% are less than 4000 square

feet. i think these are good arguments for or alot size variance. the question is, is this enough to justify this variants for this property? the neighbors have raised many interesting points about the history of the developments here. yesterday i looked at our historic maps, out which have the history of the development of these. i was surprised go back to the 1946 book and find out basically every single lot on this block was 25 by 1000. -- 25 by 100. in 1946, they had all 3 lots that make up this property under separate ownership. in 1952, the building was built. 1953 is what the subdivision merged the two lots.

then in 1965, it shows that had been effectuate it. looking at more recent books, it was 50 feet wide, but the building was an adjacent 25-foot lot. it was further merged in 1978 to the current size. the rh-1d which instituted the requirement was 1961, and i was struck by how overtime, all of thelots -- all of the lots on the block had become conforming. the zoning was working, creating larger lots that were at least 4000 square feet or more. there is still a mix, but it seems the zoning is working. it seems this proposal goes against the historic development of the lot. i will admit that i was actually

persuaded and supportive of the project until this information yesterday. i think it is very important context of the decision. that is not to say there could not be development on this lot, as i just noted, there is a 25- foot lot next door. unfortunately, the owner of that has passed away, but if there is potential for merging lots to create a code conforming a lot, development may be appropriate, but i did not see it as appropriate to subdivide this out into what is being proposed here. with that, i will be inclined to deny the request that variance. that decision is appealable to the board of appeals within 10 days of the letter being issued. we will try to have a letter issued in the coming week. there is the pending discretionary review request that had been filed by several neighbors. we had communicated that if the variance was denied, we would

refund those d.r., and we will talk more after this hearing about how to proceed because the project sponsor has an appeal right. if the project decision is overturned, it would move forward, have to look at how to move best forward. we want to be as fair as possible with all parties. with that, that is my decision and we will be closing this hearing at this time. thank you all very much.