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. >> 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,