blocking construction of two homes were 65 belgrave currently exists. they went on to warn that whereas the commission appears the subject dwelling would be out of character with surrounding homes would encourage similar development of a few other vacant narrow lots along belgrave avenue in a way that would be detrimental to this neighborhood. they noted the commitment of residents to protect the neighborhood. whereas it could be achieved at this time, such preservation may be insured into the future by the murder of existing substandard lots into standard sized lots, and property owners appearing before this commission expressed their desire to such lot mergence. the owner of 65 belgrave

acquired this. this would be going against the commission's own prior actions and would severely undermined faith in the planning section and codes, and be an insult to mr. keaton and reverse the very action that he took to preserve and protect the street he loved. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm jack. i have to lift on belgrave for 40 years. let me confine myself to a couple of arguments that were post. he claims that the lot on 89 is too big to use as it is. indeed, 89 belgrave sits on a large lot, but the previous owner was very well able to use and enjoy this entire property.

he even extended his house on to the side of one of the properties, of one of the sidewalks. mr. keaton was also very proud of having merged his in what he called it in perpetuity. he was very proud of that, and he spoke of it repeatedly. he would be horrified to hear what is big thought about. they also argued that he could not develop and expand without damaging the character but of belgrave avenue. that is strange, because some time ago he proposed to us, a the neighbors, a big l-shaped house that would expand 89 to the uphill side and filled the whole side, the greenside about the street in tact.

we were all for that. we said go for this. again, with regard to respecting the nature of the street, the two houses he is proposing to build are so clearly out of character size of what is on the street that he is going against his own argument. i think he presented some very strange arguments in his variance application. again, we would be faced with a wall, a very large mansion on our street, and some middle- class residents would be removed from 89 belgrave as it is now. help us protect our street, please. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.

i will try to be brief. i want to review quickly the zoning history, as has been pointed out. in 1961, not the street was zoned rh-1d. it is important know that all but one of the lot was built before 1961. since then, with one exception in 1972, at every house built on the street or develop has been on the conformed lot. there were two attempts to get smaller lots to develop on, and since then both or denied. i think there is a consistent history, 40 years, where there has not been a development of a nonconforming lots on the belgrave. in those denials, the planning department specifically pointed to the unique nature of belgrave avenue. i purchased a house on that street because of that unique nature. this development would alter

that nature and set a precedent that alter's 40 years -- it has been 40 years we have maintained the character of the street, and this president would have a negative impact on the value of all of the homes on belgrave. this variance is being asked because a speculative real terror bought house at the height of the bottle and is now and may -- a speculative real- estate agent bought a house at the height of the bubble and is in the hole. i will leave it at that. i have a note here from craig morton, from 1626 schrader, submitting his opposition. >> thank you, you can leave it up here. >> thank you. >> good evening.

155 belgrave avenue. i am strongly against this variance. as you have heard from the neighbors already, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances having to do with this lot. 7500 square feet and a land of very large lots, all of the homes on belgrave avenue are conforming lots. they were all grandfathered in, the exceptions. the largest what is more than 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?