process. they're basically getting a little bit of shadow on one building and they are losing some view from another one. call a spade a spade. anyhow, [speaker not understood], can you have this come up? thank you. as you know, this is what it was. this is what it is. i'm just going to take you through the process a little bit. the planning analysis that we did and which has been referred to shows a great deal of diversity all around buena vista park. it's every kind of building, every kind of height, every kind of setback. san francisco is pretty diverse, but it's very difficult verse right hire. you can just go all around the park and find every variation. so, the claim there is some unique circumstance to this property is quite unfounded. i can just keep going with these as you can see.

but probably the most extreme one which actually comes back to some of the stories is this julia morgan building which is quite historic and very big. but obviously we're not proposing anything like that. but i would like to show that -- sorry. let me finish real quick without showing. the key thing, though, is we went from a three-story edition, you can read it 2349 minutes. the neighbors had their dr problems which is normal. ~ what will make you happy, we reduce it had by one story, and they're still unhappy with that. referring to the deal that supposedly was crafted once upon a time, i was the architect. neither of those two neighbors even lived in those buildings. so, for them to claim that there was some deal is [inaudible]. and anyhow that sums it up. thank you. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions to the party in interest? okay, at this time let's hear from members of the public if they wish to speak on the side of the project sponsor. if you could please line up on

the right-hand side of the chamber. hello, president david chiu and members of the board of supervisors. i am stephanie, and this is martin. we are the homeowners at 61 1 buena vista. today we ask that you please deny the requested appeal that our project categorical c-e-q-a exemption. over the past two years we have cut, trimmed, recolored, setback and radically reduced our home addition to respectfully address concerns by our neighbors. the final design that was reviewed by the planning commission was done so because it is a respectfully designed addition that blends well into the neighborhood's architectural context. it's a straightforward project that presents no unusual circumstances. please see this appeal for what it is. the neighbors don't want to work with us at this point. they want to stop the project period.

and their approach to make this happen is to incrementally cutaway at the square footage and drive up costs and delays. we are [speaker not understood] this appeal before you today has no merit for a small project that meets all the guidelines of the categorical exempt project, has been through a vast amount of changes and negotiations to try and make the project suitable for everybody within the neighborhood, and has been approved by the city and planning commission. the issues raised have nothing to do with c-e-q-a and i ask that you deny this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> next speaker. sfgov, thank you very much. my name is ken [speaker not understood]. as cat pointed out, there was a

sequence from different designs. we [speaker not understood]. now the story down to 3, changed [speaker not understood] the planning department and in respect of meeting with the neighborhood. and this one is the last design. you see the red dashed line which outlines the envelope which based on the code could be wilt on. and we always, always tried to have a design which is -- which doesn't copy an historic design. it is true to the time. so, in different parts of the world there are these two sides you could argue. you have to copy to keep the

whole context intact or just very clear different design so in future reference you know [speaker not understood]. i think it's a good process that the city creates a good tool for future process and i also walk around the park. and for the vistas, you have good views and these view don't even see the subject property. so, there's no impact from these vista points from the buena vista park. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker. members of the board of supervisors, i'm a homeowner in the buena vision that ashbury heights neighborhood, about a block and a half away from the 61 1 buena vista project. as a resident my wife and i have tracked the design process the last two years and believe that the final approved design is frankly terrific.

i frequently walk in buena vista park with my children and almost always stop to admire the great architecture that lines this park. in fact, it's one of the reasons we moved to the neighborhood in the first place. we are lucky to have such a range of buildings around this park and is perhaps one of the best displays of san francisco architectural history where you can see victorianses next to an h. julia morgan building and modern wooden structures as well. in 2003 when the property at buena vista was remodeled, it turned it into a beautiful single-family home done with an abundance of taste of the lines of the property you see today and extends out as an example in the neighborhood. we therefore fully are in support of expanding this building vertically as we find the proposed addition to be the perfect accent to this existing structure. in fact, as i mentioned earlier, this addition is in keeping with the tasteful and mixed actech -- architectural

[speaker not understood] of the neighborhood. it adds enormously to the structural diversity in the neighborhood. we ask that the board of supervisors support this project and deny appeal to the categorical exemption status forcing a c-e-q-a review of a modest and beautiful addition could be a great disservice and this appeal is clearly designed to try to kill this project to escalate cost and delays to the homeowners and we very much against moving forward. thank you very much. >> thanks. next speaker. board of supervisors, my name is lucia [speaker not understood] and together with my husband i am a homeowner and resident in the buena vista and ashbury heights neighborhood. we is fully support the 61 1 project and see no reason why the categorical determination should be reversed. nothing the appellants mentioned were on c-e-q-a

review in the project. it concerns me greatly that neighbors can move the appeal process in this way to delay and drive up costs to individual homeowners especially when it is clear the homeowners of 61 1 buena vista have already remediated design aspects to address these concerns. as a resident of san francisco and this neighborhood, i applaud people who [speaker not understood] and i want the resources of such projects to go towards making the best highest quality, most beautiful remodel and not [speaker not understood] on delay tactics. what lucia was saying -- my name is kevin and i very much support the city's original finding for categorical exemption. we moved to the neighborhood about six years ago precisely because of the beautiful architecture and the fabric of the neighborhood. we don't feel this house detracts from the beauty of the neighboring victorian. there is a beauty in a [speaker not understood] house and a

beauty in a 10 or 1 year old house. as far as views from buena vista, i'm there every morning with my dog and our two young sons in a stroller. i walk that drive every morning and in no way does this block an oceanview that is so appreciable that it is a public asset. it simply fills in a small space that adds some congrewth to that little segment of the city. it's a wonderful home now and tremendous in the future. we enjoy all three of the homes. that's it. >> thank you very much. next speakers. hi, members of the board of supervisors. i live in the haight neighborhood and i visit buena vista park. many times i walk by the house at 61 1 buena vista. i ask the board to deny [speaker not understood]. this is a small addition and one of the most beautiful homes in the area. it has no impact on the

environment and even features green growth. the city should deny the appeal and not side with the appel apartments to exploit the city rules to protect their own private views and interests. i'm also very concerned about what your ruling today would mean for the small homes -- small homeowners like myself in the city. the cost to rehabilitate in san francisco is one of the highest in the country. often the best option for a young family already in possession of property is to do a small expansion of a home to make it more family friendly. this is the best time for homeowners and a benefit to san francisco, needs for more family friendly housing and for bringing young family in the city. the planning commission and the city has permitted the expansion of the home at 61 1 buena vista west, is a modest vertical addition under a living group. the [speaker not understood] is an attempt to stop the section by forcing an excessive

application of cqu to a project that clearly falls under the guideline of a categorically exempt. ~ cqa almost every property is located next to historic structures and based on appeal before you. that's based on appeal before you today, the applicant should ask that every project in san francisco should have to go through the full ceqa everywhere. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. hello, members of the board. my name is madelein. i am a native and own r of historical home here in san francisco [speaker not understood]. i'm speaking in support of 61 1 buena vista. as a homeowner, i value the diversity and creativity of beautifully designed architecture from all eras. i live in a historical home and appreciate unique architectural features of my more modern neighbors.

carefully designed architecture promotes the unique architectural features of adjacent building and the neighborhood even when the structures are from different eras. the proposed addition for 61 1 buena vista does exactly this by expanding on an award winning design that complements the architecture of its neighbors. this is a very modest project and as a property owner i am concerned about the possible removal of a categorical exemption for a project of such small stature on a nonhistoric building. the project meets all the legal guidelines of the categorically exempt project. if you, the board of supervisors, requires a full c-e-q-a evaluation on this small legally exempt project, i do not see how any project in the city can be exempt. while i don't have plan to remodel my property, i fear the press department that would be set is the categorical exemption is overturned for this project. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker. board of supervisors, i had prepared comments, but i think all the technical points have been made so i'm now speaking as a homeowner in the neighborhoodv. what i hope is a rational citizen of the city. just listening to the arguments that have been made up to this point, i think we've now exceeded the limits of rational argument and turned a process that's thorough and constructive for the city into a mud slinging match between neighbors. i think it's unfortunate. i've seen projects go on in my neighborhood including next door to my house. they stretch out over multiple years, even modest renovations and it discourages homeowners from investing in the properties that they have. i travel up to the park every day with my son. i enjoy the park. i use the neighborhood, i use the sidewalks there and i don't object to this project. so, i hate to see what are positive guidelines for the city turned into something that could be used by neighbors to

inflict changes on people who are proposing renovations. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, board of supervisors. my name is josh davis. i've lived in san francisco since 1 79. i have two children. i live in noe valley and we go to buena vista park quite frequently. ~ 1979 i want to stay in san francisco. i don't want to have to leave a city because my family is growing, and my family is growing and i live in a relatively small house and i'd like to be able to remodel it. and i fear this might set a precedent where homeowners who want to do a relatively small remodel to accommodate a growing family will be subjected to an extraordinarily expensive process and i don't think it's fair. and i think the points have been made by many other speakers along these lines and i'll just leave it at that, that i'm in support of these builders and their attempt to remodel their house. thank you. >> thank you.

are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor? please step up. okay. seeing no additional speakers, public comment on that side is closed. let me ask the appellant if you'd like to use up to three minutes for rebuttal. yes, we would. thank you, president chiu. i'd ask the board to keep in mind here the standard of review before you. there are clearly arguments on both sides. the question is whether environmental review is required. a fair argument standard applies. that means if there is any evidence on the appellant side, any credible evidence that this project might have a significant impact, then the categorical exemption is set aside. we heard from staff, staff's opinion about things. we heard from the project sponsors, their expert's opinion. but the opinions of your

planning commissioners and the neighbors who -- all of the neighbors who actually live on this block are supporting the appellants here. the others that you heard of are from the other block. you have substantial evidence in the record supporting our position and that's what's key. the fear of a precedent setting project is unwarranted and i think -- maybe appropriately designed to influence this board, but it's just not true. the fact here are very unusual. going back to the planning commission transcript, i noted that commissioner antonini, it was stated by someone else here, perhaps the architect, that the project 10 years ago was designed to go down the hill. that was the agreement that was made, that they would go down instead of up. so, now they've gone down and that was the agreement and now they're trying to go up again. and that's where we see the segmentation. i already explained that yes,

normally things go forward, but in this case we have a segmentation that is undoing something before. guideline section 15064.5, c-e-q-a guidelines historic guideline, right, it does not require substantial evidence show that a resource will be de listed. that was incorrectly stated. i'm not sure if ms. tam said that, but certainly the project sponsor attorney did. ~ p [inaudible]. the test is whether a project may materially impair historic significance. it does not mean it's gone. and what you saw from the photographs and what you heard from the planning commission was that that they believe this particular addition that will block the character defining features of these roof lines of these homes will have an impact on the esthetics of this neighborhood. and those esthetics are covered by c-e-q-a. a demonstrable esthetic effect is subjective and [speaker not

understood]. the fact that staff may decide it's not significant, doesn't mean that that is, in fact, something that this board may accept. you must look at the evidence on the other side and it can be subjective. but that's that this may be a potential historic district and this may have an impact on that. those are all things in the environmental study and they just haven't even been looked at here. while this isn't a question of a property report, we showed you the site plans, the actual site plans that were prepared by the project sponsor in fact inaccurate. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. colleagues, any final questions to any of the parties involved today? okay. unless there is any objection, colleagues, at this time this hearing has been held and is filed. [gavel] >> and the matter is in the hands of the board. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president.

first, i want to thank all of the folks on both sides who came out today. i know sometimes our public process is not exactly the most user friendly in terms of people who all have busy and full lives. and i think the fact when we have people coming out particularly on both sides, it shows that everyone is very passionate about their neighborhood and passionate about our community. i remember approximately two years ago, a few months after i took office when we had the first c-e-q-a appeal from district 8, ms. tam also worked on that from ord street, which was -- makes this appeal look completely harmonious and noncontentious, there was a huge turnout on both sides for that one. and i remember saying at the

time that as a district supervisor, when you have lots of your constituents siding with lots of your constituents, it's a lose/lose for you politically it doesn't matter what you do. there are going to be people upset with you. and in a way, it's liberating because when it comes to c-e-q-a it's about applying the law. people are unhappy with you no matter what you do, it makes it easier to focus on applying the law. i also just want to acknowledge another very, very difficult thing about these kinds of appeals and it's very true about this matter, that, you know, sometimes we tend to when we look at the range of c-e-q-a appeals, we talk about these are the big appeals and these are the really little appeals. and, you know, yes, when you're talking about the cpmcs and the

park merceds and the treasure island and the mission bay kind of appeals, those are certainly very, very large projects that have significant and profound effects on neighborhoods and on the city. but i don't like referring to cases like this one or like ord street or other appeals we've had as little appeals. these appeals all affect people. and even if you're talking about a relatively small project in terms of a one-story vertical addition, you know, if the project doesn't happen, that has a real profound impact on the people who are living in the home and wanting to do expansion. they're going to continue to live in that home and they're not going to have that expansion. if you allow the project, you have a real effect on the surrounding neighbors. and we all know, we all live in homes. when you have impacts in terms of physical changes on your

next-door neighbor the neighbor behind you, it has a significant and long lasting permanent effect on the way that you live your life and the way that your house is situated in the neighborhood. so, although this might belittle, quote-unquote, in the range of our c-e-q-a appeals, these projects do have effectses on people, whichever way we rule. and, so, for me i do take these appeals very, very seriously however big or small they are. and i do think it's important out of fairness to everyone to be very, very careful and conscious about applying the standards of c-e-q-a. and i say that in contrast to the standards of a discretionary review. we are not a review body of the planning commission. the planning commission can make very sometimes subjective determinations about -- make this taller, shorter, set this back or make this change or

that change because the commissioners set or points of view, they think something should change. and, so, we heard about a lot of issues today that are very, very, very legitimate issues and disputes, but in my view are more appropriate for a discretionary review or an appeal to the board of appeals that is happening and are not relevant to c-e-q-a. so, in applying c-e-q-a here, it's my view that this categorical exemption was correctly granted and that additional environmental review is not required here. i won't repeat the arguments i heard from the planning department, but i do agree with them. i want to stress that i talked before about ms. brandt holley setting a precedent.

there are times when you need to set a precedent. if there is a c-e-q-a issue and you need to set a precedent, that is appropriate. i believe overturning this cat ex here would be setting a precedent that would be outside of c-e-q-a and would, in effect, turn this body into some sort of review body of the planning commission's discretionary review determinations around views, around shadows, around a number of the things that we discussed. ~ today. so, with that, i do move that we affirm the categorical exemption, specifically the motion is to move item 14 and to table items 15 and 16, and that is the motion. >> thank you, supervisor wiener has made a motion from the categorical exemption. that is seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, any additional questions? before we vote, i just want to

note, supervisor mar unfortunately was not feeling well and had to go home so i'd like to entertain a motion that we excuse him for the rest of the afternoon. motion by supervisor farrell seconded by supervisor campos, without objection, he will be excused. [gavel] >> with that, if unless there is discussion, let's take a roll call vote on supervisor wiener's motion. >> supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 10 aye. >> the motion is approved and the categorical exemption is affirmed. [gavel] >> thank you to the members of the public. and with that, let us go to the adoption calendar, madam clerk. >> items 19 through 21 are being considered for immediate adoption without committee

reference. a single roll call today [speaker not understood] unless a member objects, a matter can then be removed and considered separately. >> colleagues, would any member like to sever these item? supervisor cohen. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'd like to sever item 21. >> tie at thev 21 is severed. members of the public, if you could please leave quietly, we still have a little bit of business to do in front of the board. madam clerk, can you call the roll on items 19 and tae? >> supervisor yee? aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. bravoed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor co-en? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 10 ayes. >> those resolutions are adopted. [gavel] >> item 21, madam clerk. >> item 21 is a resolution declaring april 9, 2013 as equal pay day in the city and county of san francisco.

>> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. colleagues, i'd just like to thank you for allowing me a chance to speak on this item today. i'll be very brief. my throat is hurting. i want to acknowledge my colleagues david chiu, john avalos, eric mar, jane kim, david campos and london breed joining me in the co-sponsorship of this resolution. and let me tell you about the purpose of this resolution. it's really to bring attention to the fact that even in 2013, 40 years after this kung tali has passed the equal pay act, women still earn an average of only 77% of what their male counterparts earn. additionally, according to the u.s. department of labor and statistics, women earn less in every job classification that has been analyzed for wage disparity. over an average working lifetime, let me tell you what this disparity would actually cost women.

it will actually cost american women and her family somewhere between 700 and $2 million in lost wages. so, ail though we're making great strides in this country for aloual rights for women, we're not quite there yet. that's why we have to continue to work together to brick bring attention to this issue. this continues to recognize disparity between pay in men and women. as the employers in our city to voluntarily take a look at their wage policies to ensure that women are being paid fairly. i'd like to take a moment to thank ~ my co-sponsors for the resolution as well as the ones that joined me earlier today on the steps of city hall. i especially want to take a moment to recognize the leadership of our partners in labor seiu, did a phenomenal job in organizing the rallies and along with the department on the commission -- of the department and the commission on the status of women as well as sfwpc. thank you, colleagues. i would urge your support as well.

>> thank you, supervisor cohen. colleagues, unless there is any additional discussion, can we take this item same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> madam clerk, could you read the in memoriams. >> yes, mr. president. today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individuals. on behalf of supervisor breed for the late dominic [speaker not understood] crawford. on behalf of supervisor cohen, for the late ms. catherine campbell. and ms. levine stuben. on behalf of supervisor chiu, supervisor cohen and supervisor wiener for the late ms. mabel sue. >> madam clerk, is there any more business in front of the board? >> that concludes our business for today, mr. president. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [gavel]