determination, and item 11 iraq suckler to prepare findings. -- item 11 directs the clerk to prepare findings. >> i asked that we continue on march 1, a 2011. >> is there a second on that motion to continue? is there any public comment to continue, and is there any member of the public who would like to speak to that will not be able to come on a future date? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take the motion to continue without objection? these will continue on the first of march. can you receive -- please read

item 4 through 7. >> item 4 is the public hearing of her sense for the planning department at the project at 10 lundys lane is exempt from environmental review. item six is the motion reversing the determination by the planning department, and item seven directs the clerk to prepare findings. >> we have an appeal that the project is categorically exempt from the environmental review. we will be considering the adequacy and completeness of the determination that this category is exempt. we will hear from the appellant, who will have 10 minutes. we will then take public comment from members of the public who wish to speak. we will then hear from the

planning department, who will have 10 minutes to describe the grounds. we will then hear from the party of interest. each speaker shall have up to two minutes to present, and the appellant will have three minutes for a rebuttal. any objection to proceeding this way? the you have in the opening comments? >> i do not have any comments. we look forward to hearing from the various parties. >> my wife should be here, but she is feeling ill at the moment.

we are affected the most by this permit to carry good our family has long term concerns about what is happening as a result of this permit. i am also seeking four other house and -- speaking for other households that are affected. the attorney previously argued that the permit is a redundant set it covers all important issues of the main permit. he also argues of the permit does not need an exemption at all, but planning gave it an exemption retroactively. this is very important because it allows owners to demolish

something previously repaired -- previously built and to put in an illegal unit. because of environmental impact on neighbors, you cannot just demolish and rebuild something that is not currently of to code. in our brief, we pointed out a list of inconsistencies and it seemed to operate, granting things likes to get hearings, stiff fees and legal extensions, and the ninth proper forum for their voices to be heard. -- denying proper forum for their voices to be heard. the owners have consistently

claimed financial stresses of the reason they should not be required to follow procedure. we are sympathetic. what is a permit allows is mostly dirt now instead of foundation. the modification would not be major. owners insist all households to approve their plans in february and later changed their minds. the statements say thus -- say that they are incorrect. owners admitted there was a separate unit. they were required to take of this precision permit.

fair process is all in a neighbor wants this ruling was not appealed by owners until it became final. owners are ruinously said net the permits were legal. they support the final city action to on reasonably qualified it as legal. they further established the legality for the environmental

quality review. they stated that it received categorical exemption from environmental review. they said they did not need review beyond the main permit. later, they applied a retroactive extension. this will hopefully have the effect of allowing for environmentally reviewing the permit i would like to put something on the overhead if possible. >> just laid down on the overhead. >> this shows the alteration

work and the results of an extension now i want to put up the sanborn map. this has 60 feet and only seven parking spaces. here they're building is short enough not to borrow an -- to bother neighbors three good -- the neighbors. it will stick out, blocking light, son, access to view, and in shooting on the privacy of

the house. imagine this facing your bedroom at close range. this shows neighbors, and they are the ones most directly affected. this is our house. it depends on reflective light much of the day. here we are at midday and later in the afternoon. my final exhibit, here is the illegal units being phillips -- being built without parking.

also, this victorian is in your 1978 special use district. it is undergoing major changes. this includes enlarging and reshaping to accommodate. this should have triggered a historical research review. the inconsistencies in this have resulted in an unfair process work community is deprived of its place. all he ever wanted is for

neighbors to follow these codes. they also do not want to do reviews for financial reasons we ask that you do everything you can to set this process right and restore our rights. we request you to exercise your -- to exercise your rights. quality of life is being adversely affected by this.

thank you. >> any questions bowman -- any questions? why don't we proceed to anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of the appellant. now each public, enter should have two minutes. >> i am one of the neighbors to the property, and i strongly proposed the building of any illegal structure and request that the city and force its zoning laws as written. the proposed rebuild seems to be an expansion of the previous illegal structure. this requires a massive new

foundation and new windows. the previous structure had no windows, and they are looking directly onto my property. i am upset about losing my privacy. i believe the requirements promote privacy and allow homeowners such as myself to enjoy my light and air. i do not see anything so you need for special about the properties that would exempt it from the rules everyone else has to follow. i believe that the rebuilding and expanding of the a legal structure would and would affect the value of my own property. it would interfere with the use of my back yard as well as

destroying the privacy i currently enjoy a. i currently urge you to who reject this. >> next speaker. >> it is an exciting day for all san franciscans. i have lived there for 26 years. i would like to point out there is no problem with the upgrade itself. good however, this is a single- family dwellings, and i do not understand how you can take as single-family dwelling with no

existing on street parking and convert it into a legal unit and not have any off street parking. this is a small block. there are only six homes. the street could probably have a maximum of seven street parking spaces. if you had two cars per home, there would be 12 cars. there is no way this one street could have 12 cars. if you park on the east side of the street, you will at times the given a ticket. if there were illegal parking, i would have no objection, but i

see no indication there will be any parking. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. our city has adopted the new building codes, and this is one of the codes for the requirements. the amendments must be more restrictive than current requirements. this section is mandated by the state, and the city cannot amend it to. if the city was able to mandate

it, it must be more restrictive. the current appointee to the board of appeals do not meet these requirements. the current appointees stated they do lack the knowledge and relied on the planning and building staff. this is not a venue that allows the people to challenge the building department and does not protect the people's rights through due process. these plays the city in precarious position. the longer you allow this to exist, the greater the chances

the city will be a target. there are people who have recently suffered, and you should afford them some resolution. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant, seeing none, you have the chance to speak. >> i am the manager of legislative affairs. with me is the man whose female was the basis for what is before you today. in the packet, you will find a detailed history of the application, appeals, and permits off the property. the case before you is not an appeal of the project.

that has expired, and the work has commenced. the appeal is about a secret determination to document to work on the rear walls of the building. the permit is to discuss whether the rear walls should be rebuilt in time, so that is the only change before you. the question is did the department consider potential to the department. the department did consider this and found that the subject would not have an adverse affect on the environment. the decision today is whether to

hold up the decision and the night the repeal or to overturn for further environmental review work. the revision was to document work performed. on november 16 of 2010, the zoning administrator responded to an e-mail and found that the plans do not appear to contain work that would trigger an additional seat for review. the subject of appeal is based on an e-mail saying the work associated with the rear wall is exempt.

issue number one, the subject was considered without environmental review. i must say while it did not received the stamp, the work proposed clearly does not have the impact to our environment here a good -- to our environment. projects such as this are exempt from further environmental the rodeo for the ceqa guidelines for existing facilities such as this very good a question has been raised about the timing of the review. this was not retroactive. because it was not final now or at the time of the e-mail, the project has been determined to

be exempt from further review. even without this e-mail, this would have also been a timely determination this could happen at any point before it is final. further seat for review it is needed because of involvement in the potential demolished man of of property when reagan you determine whether the proposed new -- abolishment of of property. this house was built prior to 1913, so the building could be a potential historic resources.

even for historic resources, they are allowed to be approved without further review. we can approve this if it is clear there are no impacts to potential resources. in this case, the proposed work involved and non-historic addition. that can not been a potential resources. the zoning administrator was correct in determination. as to the statement, it is not a

demolition or a complete and demolition. this work is exempt from further review per ceqa guidelines. they did not filed a ceqa appeal. on november 3, the board denied a request made by the appellant. in conjunction to the appeal before supervisors, the city attorney has determined the earlier permit is timely. for the reasons of both, the category complies with ceqa, and

they recommend the board of polled environmental review and the 9 ceqa determination of -- and deny ceqa determination. goo>> why don't we hear from the party of interest element -- of interest? >> i would like to introduce a fine architect and next to me, and welcome to the new supervisors. we will be moving in once it is finished. this problem and -- probably but will be the first one approved by board members. when you finish hearing this

case, you will have learned a great deal more about ceqa. he is a public -- she is a public school teacher, and her husband is a documentary filmmaker who can make this city such a wonderful and compassion that plays. they have indicated they planned several more, and they did not appeal to the board of appeals or the planning commission. the project stopped for about six months. the revision was made necessary when the contractor started to repair certain walls and found

debt -- found the wall needed to be replaced and not nearly repaired. he talked about rebuilding them in the same dimensions as they are today. you realize things need to change. the only issue is whether the planning department did sufficient review. this revision allows for to 5 feet of the wall and 15 taser 18 feet of the south wall -- 15 to

18 feet of the south waltol the reasons it gave cover those reasons. the area has already been reviewed under historic guidelines, and the additional demolition that is not a historic. finally, the replacement does not trigger enough demolition so it runs afoul of the rules subject to a an automatic planning commission.

they say the decision which was late although it was not late for two reasons. they still have an appeal going of the board of appeals, and our clients cannot complete the work. if the appellants get this revision subject to more where view, they have an opportunity to go to the planning commission for review of the entire project. our system is very generous in that it appeals to