>> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. just two brief questions for planning. one is in terms of what kind of view obstruction or alteration could rise to a level of a c-e-q-a or environmental impact under c-e-q-a or a significant environmental impact under c-e-q-a? can you just describe planning's position on that? and i think you heard ms. brent holley's position about what may or may not constitution the -- a protected vista in an urban environment. so, if you could just respond to that and describe planning department's position. >> good afternoon, supervisors. tara jones environment review officer.

[speaker not understood] one is blockage of a scenic view or vista. those scenic views or vistas are called out in the urban design element of our general plan. that is one document that we use for guidance on this subject. and this is -- this particular view that has been described verbally by the appellant does not rise to that level. there is also the possibility of substantial demonstrable adverse effect on the visual quality or character of the surroundings. in this case, this is pretty typical urban setting. it's a very mixed architectural character. and there's no demonstrable evidence that the addition as proposed would rise to the level of a substantial adverse demonstrable effect on this existing setting. >> thank you.

and then in terms of -- i think it appears to be undisputed that the subject property at 61 1 buena vista west is not a historic resource, but that the two adjacent buildings are both eligible -- eligible for inclusion on the national registry under certain places. is that the -- >> tina tam for the planning department. that's correct. the planning on 61 1 buena vista west has lost sufficient integrity to be considered historic resources under c-e-q-a. but the two adjacent buildings are historic resource although they have never been formally surveyed. >> and the two buildings on the other side -- i'm familiar with the street, with these buildings and with the

neighborhood, i've known unquestionably historic beautiful homes. the question is what is the standard for changes to a building that is not a historic resource, standard for what constitutes a significant impact on adjacent historic resources? ms. tam, you made reference to this building or renovation or expansion will not cause the building to touch either of those buildings. but i'm just wondering what is the exact standard for what can be a significant environmental impact once surrounding historic resources? >> tina tam for the planning department once again. yes, the buildings will not touch the sufficient side of the buildings from the south. there is any evident that would demonstrate there will be material impairment to these adjacent buildings to where they wouldn't be considered resources any more. >> and that's what i had the understanding, that the standard is that it would make

those adjacent buildings, one or both of them, no longer potential historic resources. is that right? >> that is correct. >> okay. and it's the department's view that this vertical addition would not cause the two surrounding -- two adjacent properties to be converted into non-potential historic resources? >> tina tam for the planning department once again. yes. the adjacent buildings that move forward if they want to be survived and consider them historic resource doesn't affect other resource without assessing what is going on at 61 1 buena vista west because there is no impact, direct impact or indirect impact to those building's eligibility for left on the california national register. >> we sometimes see beautiful historic buildings and then you see this here probably and other places of the country as well these sort of weird situations where you see even a high-rise being built and you

have this little old home next to it. and it's always an interesting visual comparing the two properties. can a building -- let's say you have a beautiful 100 year old perfectly preserved victorian, and then there is a high-rise that's built next to it. can that 100 year old home still be a historic resource? >> tina tam for the planning department again. possibly there is a consideration of vetting. if there is a high-rise that's being constructed adjacent to something that has previously a nice garden or an open space of some sort, that would change the building's setting and its relationship to the street or when we're evaluating this property. but in this case 61 1 buena vista is there, has been there since 1946. and adding an addition to that building, does not change the setting really adjacent two buildings. >> at some point the addition

of a vertical addition could in the right circumstances deprive an adjacent property of its historic resource status, but you're saying not here? >> not here. and i wouldn't say in addition. you mentioned earlier in your statement about a high-rise, a new high-rise. so, i'm responding to that inquiry that, yes, a high-rise historic building that previously had a nice garden in the front or side to it, could be affected bill that new construction. >> okay. in terms of here, even with the vertical addition, it still would be shorter than the surrounding potential resources and it's clearly a very, very different kind of architecture, very modern. it's the planning department's view that would not deprive the surrounding potential resources or that status? >> that's correct. >> okay, thank you. >> colleagues, any other questions to planning? okay. at this time why don't we now hear from the real party in interest. you have up to 10 minutes for

your presentation. [inaudible]. i'm with the sedgwick law firm here representing the project sponsor. we submitted a detailed letter to you about a week ago in response to the appeal letter and i hope you had the opportunity to consider that. appellants' counsel submitted this afternoon a letter outlining some arguments. this late submittal does not at all change the plain conclusion that the department acted in full compliance with c-e-q-a in this case. i will address the legal issues and our architect will address some of the physical issues involved in the background. but by way of brief background, the home at 61 1 buena vista was built in 1946. in 2003 approvals were secured to model the existing home into its new notable modern style. in fact, in 2005 it was featured in dwell magazine and was lauded for blending into

the neighborhood that's comprised of diverse architectural styles. by the way there were no written agreements at the time that approval was granted. appellants fell belated le in the mix of c-e-q-a segmentation argument that such an argument cannot go back in time to capture a project that was implemented a full decade ago. segmentation refers to dividing into two or more parts a current proposal so as to avoid comprehensive environmental review. the remodel that took place 10 years ago was within the existing home envelope, and now in 2013 is part of the environmental setting. it is part of the baseline against which impacts of the addition are to be judged. c-e-q-a only looks forward. for your information, by the way, in order to add the third story addition, substantial work needs to be done on the house from the foundation up to support the third story addition. so, that addition was not

envisioned 10 years ago. so, appellant today claim that in his survey of property lines indicates that there are errors in lines relied upon in 2003. as noted in 2003 the home was remodeled in its existing footprint and existing envelope. whether or not the property lines require any adjustment at this point is a private matter for a title company. but the location of lines on a title report or a deed is blatantly irrelevant to the question at hand concerning whether the modest one-story home addition will have physical environmental impacts of a degree to overcome the presumption thats afforded by the law to a categorical exemption. nearly two years ago the project sponsors proposed a 2000 square foot two story addition to the current home. dr requests were filed. those requests asked that the home be brought down by three stories. the sponsors eliminated the

fourth floor and eventually lost 100 square feet of what now is about a 700 square foot addition. first by abiding by the planning commission's design and direction to pull the front wall back an additional three feet. and then afterwards by actually volunteering to pull two-thirds of the back wall in by six feet to further respond to neighbors' concerns. the appellants have not argued in writing prior to today that theretion any impact on historic resources. however, that issue has been raised here verbally so i will address it. ~ there is there actually is no evidence in the record to support the fact that the two homes on either side of 61 1 buena vista are designated historic resources under c-e-q-a. they may qualify for that, but that evidence has not been put into the record. and that determination has not actually been made by the city. in any event, as supervisor wiener pointed out earlier, a showing would have to be made

that the addition to the 61 1 buena vista home would actually demolish or materially alter the physical characteristics that qualify the nearby homes to be historic resources in order to show that the addition at 61 1 were to adversely affect a historic resource. and i don't think that that showing can be made at all. it certainly has not been made here today. is there a question? >> supervisor wiener. following roberts rules. >> at what point would, if at all, if ever, changes to 61 1 be to such an extent it could -- if we assume there are potential resources, at what point could work to apprise

them of that status? would it be 10 stories up, 5 stories up, 2 stories up, never? assuming that we didn't have zoning restrictions? >> okay. i believe it is a matter of degree and it would be somewhat a matter of judgment. but in my opinion, given the existing property lines, the house would have to go so far up, maybe at 10 stories. but i don't even see an architectural consultant at that point finding that the historicity, the original integrity of say the 601 building or the 615 would be undone. it would be different perhaps if this were designated as a historic district, which it is not. and the appellants' consultant have verified in the past that it is not a historic district. but even then the question would be does the addition here

impair the district just like it would impair the nature of the home nearby to the point that it cannot be eligible any longer to be a historic resource. and i just don't see how an addition to this house could meet that test. >> and then also the issue of the vista, which i imagine you were going to get to. i'll let you go at your own order. i just want to make sure you address the vista about talked about with ms. brandt holley and with the planning department. i will, thank you. >> thank you. the vista issue falls into what [speaker not understood] have primarily asserted the exception to the categorical exemption comes into play. and that exception requires that two things be shown. first, that there are here unusual circumstances different from the circumstances where most cat ex's apply, and secondly that substantial evidence is in the record, that there's a reasonable possibility of environmental

impact flowing from those unusual circumstances. unusual circumstances tend to be things like locating a landfill on top of a very delicate groundwater basin. appellants have not established unusual circumstances here. on the dreher contrary, the situation here is quite typical to other additions to single-family homes within the san francisco san francisco. ~ in fact once the third story is built 9 home will remain shorter than the profile of the surrounding home. as to the second prong of the test, the impact, appellants have not demonstrated that there are significant physical environmental impacts. the view arguments appear to focus on views from the street of the turret of the seemingly large home at 601 buena vista and supposed views of the ocean. i've actually not seen any photos of views at the ocean from buena vista park. so, that is not in the record.

the home at 601 is -- well, the planning commission -- there's been a lot of discussion of what happened there. the dined the planning commission did order that the front wall be pulled back another three feet. so as to make sure that folks on the street or in the park could still see the pretty turret which is a very nice turret at 601 buena vista. but it was very clear that mr sugaya said he would like to see some gesture made to the neighboring homes. not that there was environmental impact, but it was a design consideration that forced the home at 61 1 to be moved back. in my view, it would be a big stretch and, in fact, would create adverse precedent within the city to find that any time a portion of one building might be partially blocked from some vantage point on the sidewalk or elsewhere, that a significant impact would occur.

likewise, the home addition will not, in fact, impair ocean views from the park as can readily be seen from the photo evidence. and the photograph here in froth of you shows the existing home, the two homes on either side, clearly if -- you cannot see the ocean at this point and were a third story added, there would be no impact to any view. ~ front even if there would be some view blockage of the ocean, there is no c-e-q-a protection afforded to views from the sidewalk or the park. appellants have also argued that a shadow impact will occur. there is no such thing really under c-e-q-a as a shadow impact as private residences. and appellants try to rely on the portion of c-e-q-a that states that an impact may occur if the project would create a new source of light or glare. plainly creating light or glare is the opposite of creating a shadow. thus that argument is nonsensical.

finally, appellants tray to characterize the residential design guidelines of the city as a land use plan or policy adopted for the purpose of [speaker not understood] environmental effects. ~ try i don't believe that they rise to that level, but in any event, the project sponsor worked very intimately with the residential design team on altering the project to meet the guidelines and the planning commission did find that those presiding guidelines were satisfied. in any event, this is ayn c-e-q-a issue. it has been addressed through the dr. it will likely be addressed again at the board of appeals. the issues of concern here to the neighbors are not legitimate environmental impacts. they're design issues that have been fully vetted and addressed through the rigorous process and we urge you to uphold the staff valid determination. i'd like now to ask alder smith to be able to speak to the design. thank you, [speaker not understood] alder smith architect of the original project and currently of the addition in front of you.

i think just to start off, we should just call this thing what it is. these are neighbors who are unsatisfied with the proper dr 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.