richard -- is 2009 for belgrave ave. it currently contains a single family house on the eastern side of the lot. the proposal includes splitting a lot into two lots of the east side. the proposal also includes demolishing a nine-foot section of the west side of the existing house and constructing a vertical and horizontal addition. it includes instructing -- constructing a new house. lots are required to have 4000 square feet of area of. the new lot to the west will contain 3300 square feet, 700 square feet less than required by the planning commode. therefore, a variance is required. >> we will give each member of the public three minutes to speak, followed by a three- minute rebuttal by the project sponsor. i would like to inform the members of the public, thank you for your patience, but i was present for the hearing on environmental reviews, so i have heard the testimony given. i want to make you aware that i did fully pay attention to the testimony that has already been given, so please consider that when making ear

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

>> i live oat 77 belgrave. it is a particularly lovely, short street, and it creates a pathway on one side, and we neighbors' selfish to want to preserve it for ourselves, but it is used by many people walking their dockgs and enjoyig themselves, so i would urge you -- >> any additional public comment? >> i am going to really keep this short. my name is joanne, and i live at 20 belgrave, and i have lived there for 28 years, and it is the most charming, a beautiful street you have ever seen, and it would be among -- an atrocity if this gets billed. -- built. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, the public hearing is closed. commissioner miguel: i have walked at st. three times. i think i understand it, but the project is not in front of us. mr. sanchez is going to have to deal with that. what is in front of us is the row appeals. i am going to quote from some of the department material, because this is a ceqa issue. "pursuant to an initial study, and evaluates and discloses the effects of the proposed

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 characte