but it's not protected under c-e-q-a. i don't want to speak for planning, but this is my reading of their response, and that to protect the view would -- could have dramatic impact in terms of -- there are a lot of different views in a lot of different settings around the city. so, can you respond to that particular argument by the planning department? yes, the city can't set legally a threshold that's significant and say -- you have to get to this point, you have to only impact a designated scenic view or else we don't call it an impact to a scenic view. and there is case law on that community [speaker not understood] environment, 2002 case where the c-e-q-a guidelines were being amended to say the city could set thresholds of significance when they're making the initial decision about whether to do environmental review. once you get into environmental review, the city can set its own standards about what it protects and what it doesn't. when you're saying something is exempt and doesn't have to do

any environmental review, you can't set a standard and state law doesn't have a standard for scenic advice taz and how they define it. ~ vistas the argument was the only vistas that are really protected are wilderness. scenic views, ocean views are one of the views that is one of the protected views and urban views, views in suburbia, are not protected. the court upheld it is good law. urban views are also protected. that's where most of us live. to protect the views and the character and the beauty of a city is just as important as protecting a wilderness vista. so, there's nothing in c-e-q-a. you're not setting precedent. you're not opening doors to say that a -- we're talking about year of fabulous historic resources from a public park and a public road. >> would you agree that any

vertical addition in a city like san francisco will have vista or view impacts in terms of how we view our city? it's hard to imagine any vertical addition doesn't have some sort of impact on what we're able to see walking around our city. that's true, but it needs to be significant to be important under c-e-q-a, and here we have planning commissioners saying so. so, i think that's the difference there. any person saying i think it's significant may not be enough. but these are a difficult area -- >> are we bound by statements from planning commissioners? is that really your argument? well, it depends on what they're saying. as planning commissioners, [speaker not understood] i want a setback because i think it will improve the design, that doesn't trigger environmental review. a planning commissioner statement that this project is going to block views of character defining features of very significant historic resources and we don't think

it's appropriate, yes. >> okay. you can proceed. but i wouldn't word i about the precedent. that's not going to happen every day. that's an unusual situation here. that's atypical. and just the converse, supervisor, is you're saying this is exempt from environmental review. and to make that finding this board has to say there's no significant environmental impact and how can you say that in this particular situation? and the fairness of it, i think -- i just think that helps, the fact that this is an add-on from a project that was previously settled. >> thank you. thank you. >> okay, counsel, you still have a few minutes left on the clock if you wish to use it. actually, if you could please speak into the mic. turn on either mic, depending which one you use. i'll try to do this so i can use the documents. they surveyed the properties and worked with an architect bruce teal who is here, and

they looked at the mn surveyed and saw that the site plan approved in 2002 in fact represented the location of the largest homes, the victorian on the corner is being four feet closer to the roadway than it really is. so, i'm going to submit for the record that this document showing the way that the site plan was approved and the way the survey shows that where the homes actually sit. and this makes a difference because, well, it affects the setbacks because they're required to be an average between the homes on either side. so, the setback is a couple of feet off and it affects the views of the turret that the planning commission thought it was mitigating as well as other impacts. i'll just go through the pictures and submit them for the record. we already have a picture of the prior home on the site. this shows -- the prior home was next to this gate and this one, as you can see, they moved

it out a couple -- it looks like a couple feet. that is consistent with the drawings that we have. we received an e-mail from a neighbor who shows that the light and glare impacts of the project are basically the blocking of light and air. this is a picture that shows with the addition a blocking of the view -- this shows the blocking of the oceanview as well as from the property next door. this picture also shows the site line from the park, it is showing the blocking of the oceanview. this is a picture also showing the blocking of the character defining features of the roof line. this shows a very similar type of blocking of the historic resources. again, most of these are in the record.

i'm not sure if they all are. another picture showing the blocking of the visual impacts. and i also wanted to submit for the record the real time transcript from the planning commission. it's a little hard to read, but it documents what the comments were of the commissioners as well as commissioner sugaya are in fact -- he said i agree. buildings next door on the sides are historic and exceptional. and the placement and forwardness of the project bothers him in relation to that. we ask that in this situation, a special situation, an atypical situation, we truly do not think is opening the door. it is only complying with state law that the categorical exemption should be set aside. we're not requesting a specific environmental document. we ask that an initial study be performed and the staff can dee said what's appropriate then and there may in fact be

project amendments. as i said in my letter, i've been involved in at least three categorical exemption appeals in the past, maybe five to seven years and we've always worked them out because they know if they come to this board, the board is going to do the right thing. and the categorical exemption may be set aside and it's an impetus to work things out. that said, it should be as well. >> mr. president? >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. just on that particular point about the impact study and sort of the working things out, and again, whether it can be worked out, of course, is not relevant to whether the categorical exemption is appropriate. but one of the issues in this case, there's a pretty sharp divide in terms of adding a story or not adding a story. as i know you know, there were other projects where there is much more room around the edge to negotiate. that's a fairpoint, supervisor. >> i guess you're requesting an

impact study which as i understand that would then lead to a determination of whether there would be a mitigated negative declaration or full environmental impact report. well, may i just comment on that? >> yes. not an impact study, an initial study it's called, that would be the staff's initial determination about what the impacts are based on all the information we now have before you including the survey, and they also have the benefit now of the planning commission report. and in terms -- oh, the other thing i wanted to say, not necessarily a full environmental impact report. they are allowed to be focus reports. it may well be a specific issue of that this e-i-r would focus on if an e-i-r was determined to be correct. and that can be a modest document that allows public review and comment and the appropriate process because it's not legally exempt. but it could be focused. when you say full e-i-r, it

sounds like something huge, and may not be. small quick moving e-i-rs for projects like. this >> [speaker not understood] i wouldn't want to prejudge what that initial study would show. but it would seem on first blush, an e-i-r would be more likely than a negative declaration because even though we're adding the story or not adding the story, i don't know what the mitigation would be that would allow for a mitigated negative declaration because that mitigation, i think from the arguments you're making, would be removal of that story, which would, i think, mean no project. we don't know what other mitigations could be possible in terms of making the story -- making the floor smaller or not, using as much glass which is causing the glare impact. so, there are mitigations and changes that could possibly occur. but if they look at the whole project, yes, the mitigation, the prior mitigation which seemed to be removing that floor may require removing an e-i-r. i don't think that is likely.

i don't think that necessarily means a long, drawn out extensive process. and it is a stout law -- if it does, it does, and that's the state law. >> i appreciate it. thank you. thank you very much. i'm not sure where i should put these documents just for the record. >> you can submit them to our clerk. thank you very much. >> okay, colleagues, any other questions to counsel? all right. with that, why don't now hear from members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant. if there are folks that wish to speak, please line up on the right-hand aisle and each member of the public shall have two minutes. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is matt leffers and i just want to -- >> i'm sorry, every member of the public has up to two minutes. doesn't matter what their role is. if they're a member of the public they can speak. please proceed.

my name is matt leffers. i live next door to the project, [speaker not understood]. this is my house. this picture actually was taken off a biosharing website where they have queen ann victorians from all over the country. there might have been 40 or 50 of them. i just happened to find it by putting maya dress in. i never took this picture, i never saw it until that time. but there were some comments about this is a beau pi. people obviously look at this house. so, 10 years ago i did a massive restoration on it, did a complete seismic upgrade and restored it to the condition it's going to be for another hundred years hopefully. during the, during the planning commission there was a, supposedly >> three foot setback. the commissioners wanted to see three feet further back for the house next door so that there was more of a view of this turret. this house was designed by an

english architect named william armitage. he made these turrets made really different. they were made using shipbuilding techniques. they're kind of uniquement. the hotel -- anyway, it's a large bed and breakfast in the city does the same thing. chateau tivali. i was shocked when we had this place. the project sponsor got up and said there's three feet. bring the original back three feet. unfortunately we had the place surveyed and they misrepresented my house forward by almost four feet, 3 feet 10 inches to be exact. i was shocked, really. i mean, i could tell with a tape measure it was off. it's obviously -- my house was moved forward to get a better positioning for the house next door for the house when they remodeled it. if you look at the house next door, you can see [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. thank you.

i hope you straighten out those house he. they're leaning right. thank you. next speaker. hello, my name is ken stewart. i live at 1415 masonic avenue which is one block over to the west and down a little bit behind the 61 1 buena vista. thanks for your time here. ~ i don't want to repeat what has been said, quite a bit today. this is really an unusual situation. for one thing, we probably had everything not necessarily under control, but everything was in harmony. the house was as it is today and now we find that they want to increase the footprint and the visual footprint of this house in this little tiny spot. so, my view is that it's a very disproportionate situation and

the main thing that -- how it impacts me and my wife, we've lived there for 25 years, is the light and glare that comes off the back of the house. obviously they want to have some views to the ocean so they have a lot of glass. in my view it's a disproportionate amount of glass. it does impact the light and glare that we get. so, thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. hello. [singing] ♪ so, come with me and share the oceanview i hope you get good luck with your item review hold this item now judge it now nothing's going to change our love for west buena vista avenue nothing's gonna change our love for you

buena vista west avenue and, so, our whole lives through and nothing's gonna change our environmental view nothing's gonna change our city view our buena vista west avenue and, so, our city whole life through and we're gonna have the bestest oceanview nothing's gonna change the city's love for you buena vista west avenue and then through our whole life through and city we're gonna have the bestest oceanview good luck with your environmental review >> thank you. next speaker. hello, supervisors. my name is jim cox.

i'm at 1468 masonic. our home is probably one of the oldest there, 1880s, victorian. and i've heard that either the first or near the first home that was in the neighborhood. and, so, i guess my basic interest is kind of preserve the nature of the neighborhood. i feel that, you know, the character of the project next to matt's house really doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. i've seen other projects in the neighborhood that unfortunately, you know, also don't fit in and don't fit in with the character. so, hopefully i consider that -- you take this into consideration and, you know, not extend the project, not

impact the neighborhood which i feel in a negative way. thank you very much. >> next speaker. my name is william gene. my family is fourth, fifth generation county farmers. we live right next door to martin, the subject property at 615-617 buena vista park. my family's home was built in 1906. it's a registered historical landmark that needs to be preserved. and i think i'll cut through the rest of it here, but there's plenty of homes in the neighborhood that are over 100 years old and little has changed. yet 10 years ago martin attempted to add another floor or two and here we are again saying yet the same subject. and i just think it needs to be looked into further.

it needs to be stopped. if anybody was at that site and looked at the historical neighborhood to see what he may do on that tiny little lot in between two historical homes is -- it defies common sense. the views, the air, it's one of the best views from buena vista park of the ocean. the shadowing, it would be terrible, terrible mistake. anyway, thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. hello, my name is [speaker not understood] and i live in the haight/ashbury area. and my husband and i have a 130-year old victorian home which we have beautifully restored and we have a very fond desire of keeping the homes in the area conforming to the neighborhood. so, i walk a lot in the buena

vista area and i believe, as said before, that blocking the view of the ocean from the block walk around the park would not be very good and in our area, in our immediate area, whenever there is a building, addition done, a lot of deference is given to the neighbors' opinions. and the builder conforms to the area or to the style of the area. and i think that i only hope that the people on the convenient evista area also wish that they would have something built that would not destroy or take away from the beautiful architecture of the building also. thank you. >> thanks. next speaker. my name is susan allen and i live on the block just north of the block in question. i live on waller street near central in a home that i've owned for 23 years.

i also rent a garage on java street just around the corner. so, for the last 10 years or so, i've walked every day up buena vista west to my garage or to my home. and i enjoy every day the view out to the ocean mid-block that this lower house provides. i also really enjoy looking at the historical homes along that block. it is a beautiful block. my brock, which is just one block north has several big modern apartment buildings that were put in in the '60s or '70s that are eyesores and were big mistakes then and they're never going away. so, i hope you make a different decision this times. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, my name is christine [speaker not understood], i live at 601 buena vista west south of the proposed project. and people are talking a lot about the oceanview.

oh, there's the oceanview, there is sort of an open space view because the house is a little lower. and also bill's house at 615 has very interesting chimney that if the addition is built, it will completely block the view of the chimney. and there is a very nicest view of the conforming road of the edwardians or victorians on the buena vista side and on the masonic side except for the 61 1 property. but it's been built. although it's in a modern style, it does have elements that currently tied into the edwardian. and i feel that it -- there are these two very large houses on either side and there is the rest of the edwardians which are the same size as the 61 1 house. i think in its current -- the way it's currently constructed, it's the walk through the neighborhood. it is the proposed addition. it will no longer be a good example.

it will take away from the beautiful views of the neighborhood. thank you. >> next speaker. my name is otto duffy, i live downtown and i have for sometime. but actually some years ago i did live in that neighborhood. i was remembering that i lived in i guess it was an edwardian and you could climb out a third floor window a few blocks away from there, could climb out a third floor window and climb up a fire scape about 12 feet up to the slanting rooftop, and you could just see -- i believe you could just see the ocean from there. urban views are pretty much what we see most of the time. they are important. hi, my name is larry juicy edmonds. i stay in district 6. i used to work as a coworker on haight street. and i still remember black people coming in and i didn't

know black people lived in that area on the haight street. but i think what we need to know, this exemption should not -- appealing for the exemption is important because if you look here, monitor, environmental not only affects the esthetics of the neighborhood, but it also affects people mental and physically. and if you go out to bca and were seeking wellness on the 17th this month, they have environmental justice tour that takes you to bayview. people are dying in bayview at 30 and 25, boys and girls, because that environment and justice out there in that area has been so unthought of. but this is a good time to join in and get environmental and come back and redo this because the environment just doesn't affect -- it affects people's health, physical and mental. so, this would be a good note

-- [speaker not understood] and is earth day april 20. keep the green. remember, the environmental tour on the 17ing. they take you through the bayview and you get to see all of the business and the chemicals in that area that cause the people there to die at a much earlier age and have a lot of asthma. let's take care -- take the e environment and do good. e justice, earth justice. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellants? with that, why don't we proceed to the next part of today's hearing and hear from the planning department. >> good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board of supervisors. my name is tina tam, i'm a senior preservation planner for the san francisco planning department. despite the issues and concerns

raised by the appellant in both the appeal letter dated february the 22nd and in the letter submitted today, the planning department still believes that the proposed project meets the requirement of c-e-q-a guidelines and will not have a significant impact to historic resources or to the public views, privacy and shadow. the proposed project is appropriately exempt from further environmental review. during discretionary review hearing on september 6, 2012, the planning commission requested additional three feet for a total of 5 feet setback from the front building wall. this condition was crafted to allow greater visibility of the corner turret of the adjacent building to the south at 601 buena vista west. while this is a condition of approval for the building permit, it was not a c-e-q-a mitigation to address for any impacts to nearby historic or visual resources. the subject building does not now nor will it after the proposed addition is

constructed touch either neighboring building to the north or south. according to the submittal plans, the overall height of the affected building will remain shorter than the two adjacent buildings in existing side setbacks will be maintained after the proposed addition is constructed. c-e-q-a mitigations are established when there is identified significant impacts to the environment. in this case there is no impact to any historic or visual resources for which any mitigation is required. while reduction in street visibility of the neighboring property was a design concern for the planning commission, it was not identified or considered as an environmental impact. further [speaker not understood] including ocean views would not be blocked by the proposed project to the existing topography into leaning trees, buildings and golden gate park to the west. while the proposed project would add some new shadowing to surrounding properties, it would not increase the total

amount of shadowing above levels that are common and generally accepted in urban areas. under c-e-q-a, the reduction in sunlight to private residents would not constitute a significant impact to the environment. lastly, the appellant's assertion that the dr action memo is inconsistent with the planning commission's intent is unfounded. based upon the recording of the dr action -- dr hearing, the dr action memo is consistent with the planning commission's approved motion. based upon the revised plans approved by the planning department, subsequent to the dr hearing, the proposed edition is setback the additional three feet for a total of five feet from the front building wall. [speaker not understood] related to the planning commission's [speaker not understood] are not c-e-q-a impacts and do not [speaker not understood] of the category exemption of the project. rather they would be more appropriately addressed in the building permit appeal to the board of appeals in which a hearing is scheduled for may the 8th.

and before i summarize to conclude, i would like to put on the record some of our final thoughts in response to some of the new issues raised in the letter that we got today. number one, the department believes the project history does not constitute piecemealing and as such is consistent with c-e-q-a guidelines. the existing side setback does not constitute any sort of unusual circumstance. the building on the subject property was not a carriage house and is not constructed 10 years ago. it is a building that was constructed in 1946, while it does encroach two feet into the required setback, it is legal and as such any change to this building, including the addition as long as it doesn't increase the discrepancy, is code complying and is consistent with the planning code in regards to the front setback. number three, the statement made about the condition made by the planning commission, again, is simply a condition. it is not a mitigation to address any sort of significant

impact. and furthermore, the planning commission oftentimes do make conditions and [speaker not understood] despite what the appellant is asserting. number four, the project was thoroughly reviewed not once but twice by the residential design team of the planning department and was determined to be consistent with the residential design guidelines. fourth and thought to be final, the appellant has not provided any sort of substantial evidence to refute the determination and conclusion of the department that the proposed project is consistent with c-e-q-a guidelines. as such, for the reasons stated, category exemption applies to c-e-q-a. the department therefore recommends the board uphold the category exemption and deny the appeal of the c-e-q-a determination.