huge argument about window replacements and who is responsible and is the homeowners association responsible because they on the outside? >> the answer is that these call for any work that requires a permit to be reviewed. >> ok, if there are any further -- it does not sound like the windows were reviewed by you and it does not sound like she reviewed your windows. you are both in violation at this point. to the project sponsor, you

don't have to answer this question. it is just an observation. i suppose it happens all the time, you hire a contractor, they should have known. they should have asked you, did you go down and get a permit. lesson learned. >> yes, definitely lessons learned. >> there is leeway in how the department looks at the installation of windows. i think that one hard and fast rule is that if this is a historic landmark building or within a historic district, would windows seem to be appropriate, the department has no qualms about asking someone to install windows. i think in other situations, the guidelines are fairly strongly

stated. i think that there is some discretion that that can take place and if the preservation staff have looked at it at all.

if you had those prior to the installation of the aluminum windows, the replacement windows are still conjecture. >> i hate will have to agree with you. this is a bad example. you usually hear about these fifth of large projects force of urban projects that this is amazing for a two-unit situation where they cannot come to any agreement at all. a number of months ago i was at

a noontime session at the planning department's on the replacement windows and it was a very interesting section and among other products that were displayed in detail were some of this type of window including some aluminum clad and wooden. i learned a great deal about them. i actually saw examples of them and saw how they compare and while i will agree that in the building, it might be if i was doing it, i could get it at a reasonable comparable price. i don't see anything wrong with this type of installation. it is unfortunate that some contractors in san francisco are allowed to continue in business and violate the law.

but we might have the authority but don't see how this rises to the level where we should make that type of a judgment call. >> i tend to agree with what has been said so far. we do have the guidelines and these might be widely circulated and people become more knowledgeable.

all the windows should probably be replaced in would. from the appearance of the windows that were put in and having dealt with marvin windows, they are very high quality windows. you have to look quite closely to tell the difference, at least that is what appears to me. i don't know it is appropriate to ask for replacement windows in this instance but i certainly think it is a good idea to try to have some guidelines that aren't known well and well accepted for the future so that this will happen less frequently but i don't see the need or the advisability of taking d.r. in this situation and i will make a motion not to take d.r. and except the project, i guess. >> second.

for >> the motion on the floor is tonight take discretionary review and approve the project. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye./ "thank you, this past of july >> six two, this passes unanimously. you are now on item 2009.156e. -- >> thank you, this passes unanimously. you are now on item number 2009

.156e/ >> this is a proposed development at 89 belgrave ave. this would propose the addition of 8 at two car garage, a four- bedroom single-family residence constructed in 1952 resulting in a 4200 square foot, 37 foot high building, with three residential levels with a new fourth floor. the existing project site would be subdivided and on a newly created parcel and a new four- bedroom single-family residence which would be constructed. the project is located near the

intersection of belgrave and s hrader. on august 17th, the plan department issued a preliminary mitigated declaration for the project which found that it would have no significant in environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. the declaration was appealed on september 14th, 2011. the appeal raised issues related to aesthetics, density, zoning compatibility, and neighborhood character. you should have before you get back to which includes the response of the concerns raised in the appeal letter, the letter itself, a copy of the negative declaration, and a draft motion to uphold the declaration.

the project sponsor's council is also here this evening. they have prepared a brief which you should have received. i have provided you, should you -- >> as noted, the repeal responses changes individual character, even substantial changes which result from construction, would not in themselves constitute an adverse visual impact unless they would substantially degraded the existing visual character or the quality of the site and its surroundings. this would not substantially degraded the existing visual character or static quality of the area, thus the negative declaration concluded that the project would not have a

significant impact on the visual quality. as described in the negati the e would not introduce new or incompatible uses to the area and would be consistent with the consistent uses in the vicinity. the proposed use would therefore not be considered a land use impact because this is permitted at present in the area. this would not have a significant impact on neighborhood character. the item before you is not to approve or disapprove the project. following this hearing, should the commission denied the appeal and uphold the negative declaration, the zoning administrator would consider a variance request for the proposed project. the decision is whether to uphold the declaration issued by the department and to deny the appeal.

we believe that this complies of the requirements and provides an adequate, accurate, and objective analysis of potential physical environmental impacts of the proposed project. no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument may occur as a result of the project. that would warrant a preparation of an environmental impact report which has been presented. the department believes that the

negative declaration is the purpose of document for this project and we should respectfully recommend that you adopt the motion to uphold this declaration. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. >> good evening. i certainly hope this is a much more straight forward and simple case than the earlier document that you heard. the document is very complete, this is unusual to have this kind of a thorough analysis for what is essentially a single- family home project. no question, this is a special neighborhood.

neighborhood character issues are much more prepared for discretionary review. i think the staff has done a good job. my team is here to answer any questions. >> i have some speaker cards here.

>> i would like to say first of all that only a few minutes ago we received a copy of the rebuttal by the law firm and have not had a chance to take a look at that and respond to it nor do we, like the out of town investor, have the resources to hire a high price to attorney to argue our case.

our objections are valid and the prior actions of this commission bear this out. in particular, that our streets should be considered as unique and different rather than compared to other streets that are done in the report. i believe that this commission has actually taken action that bears this out. the planning commission rejected an application to build two houses on the light -- on the lot where this project exists. in rejecting that, the commission said, the existing pattern of the test houses gives the belgrade neighborhood a unique and secluded character unlike that of many nearby streets. they went on to say that the commission fears that approval of the subject dwellings which

would be out of character with surrounding homes would encourage similar development of the few other vacant lots along the avenue in a manner that would be detrimental to this neighborhood. we're looking at the same situation right now. if preservation of the existing pattern can be achieved at this time, such preservation may be insured by the merger of existing substandard lots into standard sized lots and property owners appearing before the commission expressed their desire is to participate in such matters. in rejecting if it to the project, this commission in 1975 asserted that this is indeed a unique and interesting neighborhood separate from clarendon st. but the planner has use those as references in deciding whether or not there is

significant impact to the street. we believe there will be a significant negative impact and this project will result in the two largest houses on the streets and the two most densely cited on the streets and changing the character and nature of this unique street. >> the master plan was to protect the neighborhood character and to protect open space. the proposed project is neither. i cannot think of anything that negatively impacts the neighborhood more than a project

that does not fit and i am sure that we have all walked in areas and wondered, what is that doing here. this project does not fit and it degrades the balance of this street. getting rid of the sunlight, getting rid of use, perceive instability of the hill, our parking. just our resident animal population and their traffic patterns. they even proposed to cap the natural spring on the property. the neighborhood over time recognized years ago that we could become a concrete jungle and they took pro-active steps to change the zoning to maintain a balanced environment in the neighborhood. the only argument i have been able to come up with to support this proposal seems to be that

just because it is within allowable guidelines, we should go ahead and do it. it does not take into consideration at all the overall long-term impact to our community. a yes vote and approval would be the first that in condemning our neighborhood to becoming a clarendon, a concrete jungle. that is not what we want to be. over time, others have attempted similar actions and your predecessors have repeatedly supported us protecting our neighborhood, the character, and the open space. i hope that tonight you will do the same. think you. >> hello, my parents have lived

at this home 46 years ago. this is in a unique neighborhood. i have watched most of the new construction in the neighborhood, the history, and it is interesting that this was brought by the neighbors in 1975. within a few years again that cover the neighbors across the street also proposed to build two houses on a very similar lot all the neighbors at that time fought it and it is now a single-family home. they had to drop the plans. this, the history of the street

has been brought to my attention that in that 160 belgrades is supposed to be torn down. i will have to correct that. i have had in process with the planning department, to build a garage and that is it, but anything being torn down. i would like to see the neighborhood not change. it is unique. and i just wish that some of you could come and see it. it is more open space.

>> this is on belgrade avenue and this is only two blocks long. -- belgrave avenue, this is only two blocks long. take anything from us, our bridges, even our bait, but leave us our hills. a hill is merely a thing of beauty. mark my words welcome planners. it is a necessity for a san franciscan to have their hills.

we remember and respect our native residents, the animals and the migratory wild life. there is a large canopy shade tree and it is home of not only many birds and squirrels that are being displaced from forests but sometimes even parents are in this. where will they go? in an age of growing worldwide awareness at the importance of preserving biological diversity and expanding knowledge of the need for natural flora and fauna, we need to preserve and protect our precious spaces for native plants and animals and not on tight the cement wall to wall everything. there's also a natural underground stream that they want to redirect. a natural stream.

what are we doing to our world? let's not overbuild ourselves. >> i am not sure what the issue is. there will be two houses built on this neighborhood. maybe that is what we should be considering. the document that was created it seems kind of sloppy. it is full of a number of factual errors, most noticeably

in references to 160 belgrave. one wonders whether this is the result of sloppy research or writing pen to the declaration makes a number of statements and not shared by the members of the property. they feel the development as planned is clearly out of character with the houses on the street, yet the document refuses to acknowledge the people live in the neighborhood. and a stand no variances have been issued as the current zoning was put in place.

the current zoning works, so why change it? the response to the appeal does not seem credible and is not responsive to the issues brought up in the appeal. i am not sure who prepared the document but it offers very little insight into the issues brought up by the project and this is a waste of resources. i urge the planning department to rescind the net with decoration and not grant a variants for the project. this was ill-conceived from the start. >> i responding to the planners. i did not realize until a few

minutes ago that there was a response that we had not had the benefit of reviewing. this contains inaccurate and inappropriate comparisons, particularly with regard to what bill great avenue is compared against. we compared against busy thoroughfares, at densely built housing, at numerous aspects are an accurate. there is incorrect information by the planner with regards to the number of the documents. this is really inaccurate information and troubling. the position and the argument

suggests that creeping homogeneity is the name of the game. we get, june 80 and change. the findings complete north the hugely negative impact this development will have on the character ofthis is unacceptabl. i am opposed and asked the founding -- the commission to