ion so with that i'd like to offer the supervisor farrell an opportunity for opening remarks. >> thank you i'll with hold remarks until after wards. >> with that we can have the appellants. are the appellants here in the chamber? >> which microphone should i use? >> you can use the one to your right of the podium. . >> therefore if you could tell us where 7 and a half minutes are over and we can share it between us. good afternoon supervisors. we are here once again members of the community

to redress our grievances. we were here on appeal exactly 27 months ago on the same project with part of the same issues that we face today in a manner that we call dejavo u.s. all over again or a variant on the play same time next year.

>> the communities should be informed in total ity they are allowed to see what is to be built and for the last 2 years we have not been able to to do that. once the project sponsor abandoned the plans immediately after our signing the agreement, she took 6 months to come up with a new set of plans we found out about in april and there after 7 permits have been issued on this job. the net effect for us has been that basically the

fundamentals of the agreement since this is the oldest building in calhalo's neighborhood our neighborhood 125 years old, it is part of a very historic district of similar historical resource buildings our family home being next door on the south side side 2845 broderick and has both a social and arc arc tech turl history and what happened then in april was a set of permits were beginning to be issued and we discovered that that the original plans for the building with defect defective and that the building was lifted the height of the building after the lift varied and it was over 40 feet on the

northern elevation we immediately contacted the city and she was given a notice of correction. she gave it in for july 1st 2013 and in fact she was supposed to have a notification to the neighbors in light of their requirement originally with a permit therefore where we are today is simply to challenge the issue of the seqa negative determination and to address the issue of the building height, the encroachment in the setback with the fire place. encroachment into the back yard building on the lot and the changes to the facade of the building due to the dwelling unit merger. as as

as as as we mentioned to you the height of the building has tremendous effect on the light, air, of all the adjoining neighbors the folks on fill bert street preponderance of street perpendicular to us had most of their kitchen light totally destroyed by the lift of of the building and the squaring of the roof for the development of the roof. the encroachment has been addressed in the original agreement. she initially wanted to have a second egress for a new unit that was being created and through the hard work of city planning historical preservation she was given such an, egress through the

garage and now abandoned it this prevents us again from light, air and repair of our buildings and goes against the very issue that issue that is characteristic. very wide alleyways between the buildings and that was a characteristic of the building between 1890 and 1915 and while she has claimed she wants to create other aspects of of the development on the roof we've never actually seen what the plans are. the side of the building is still planned to to be change and there's a permit she had withdrawn but appears to be coming back -- changing the entry system of the building to suit her new development and the environmental and historical

preservation issues has a lot to do with the architecture and in fact whether those entry ways are going to be used now for the staircase from two two separate units. >> you have 7 minutes and 30 seconds left. >> we're asking you to do the following things as a consensus of all the neighbors that we presented to supervisor farrell and i will let him give you his interpretation of his issues and i will come back and i'll finish with what we are requesting. >> thank you. next appellant, please. >> is it possible to plug this in or no? no? don't worry.

that's okay. i'll just put this on. . okay. my name is paul wise and i live at 2824 broderick street directly across the street and i've been asked by tim to speak on his behalf tonight our next door neighbors also living on the east side of broderick street also directly across from this property. the neighbors on the east side of broderick street are here today or i'm representing them because we're not satisfied with the process by which the property in

question has gotten to to this point. our main concern is that the project sponsor had some drawings that were misrepresented they were done to obtain a permit to raise the building and then they were retroactively corrected essentially with a stroke of a pen. had the neighbors been presented with the factually correct drawings from the beginning our reaction to the project would have been different when the plans were submitted and i don't know if you can see this diagram that i brought, but my wife and i joked that this house looks like a partially extracted tooth.

this is something that we talked about a moment ago and this project is a blue print for how to sir to circum navigate the project. it's been under construction for several years now and it's clear there have been breaches that need to be addressed and that's why we're here today. thank you. >> thank you. do i see the other appellant filling the remainder of the time? >> yes. >> you have 4 minutes and and 50 seconds. >> thank you. what we had requested on behalf of all the neighbors in the area who are concerned with this with regard to the height the building should be lowered between 12 and 18 inches which will still

allow for garage opening for most vehicles. lowering the house would also allow the garage doors opening and the neighbors are willing to pay for a structural engineer to help create the plans necessary to lower the house 12 to 18 inches. per the agreement signed by the members on on september on september 4th, 2012, no new construction expansion into the south side alleyway the profile of the building should remain as as to that so that the light isn't severely restricted this includes any new bay windows or other expansions into the space return the house to the original profile in the rear and return the historic porch and deck that that existed before the construction began.

eliminate any staircases extended into the rear yard the rear yard house scheduled to extend closer to 20 feet to the west. building unit merger -- have the city review the twelg the dwelling unit merger was conducted and roof development no squaring off of of the roof and the neighbors need to see the full plan of the roof development which has not been is shown to us again. review the engineering plans for drainage and lateral support for both the south and north of the property assumes bb bbi can provide the plans the neighbors are willing to pay for an engineer to see how it impacts other historical resources this goes back to the

very issue that is now going on at on at bbi in a meeting with supervisor farrell scot sanchez from city planning and joseph did joseph duffy we have gone over the issues and they have assigned someone from dbi to review the entire situation of the multiple permits and piecemeal and to bring it all under one umbrella. this is what the supreme court called for in such cases. we believe this should go forward as quickly as possible and they have submit to city planning checking for city entitlements and notifications need to be given they will be given and reviewed with their own engineers. the underground streams in the area we all have

and there's water pooling in many of our homes in fact at the moor head's home on fill bert street. what is going to happen to in fact to our own foundations as a result so we are requesting you today to help us preserve historical assets and resources in san francisco. bring the building back to its exterior envelope under the agreement to remain in tact no one is against the project sponsor and interior development of her building but we strongly believe that the envelope of the building should remain in tact as we as we agreed and the footprint

should remain in tact as we agreed and a 2-unit building and convertible into the use of a home. thank you. >> thank you. so at this time i'd like to call up any members of the public who would like to support the appeal they will have up to 2 minutes each. come to the podium. any members of the public who would like to speak in support of the appeal? >> i never got a notice. i live behind this building -- number 2 is i equate this case and i repeated ly asked if construction was going on and the expansion i would like to double check and have someone

double check. the light hair on the environmental -- he is going to be totally black they made an exception to the rule on the left side of his house and all of a sudden he's getting dry rot, mold and other things just because of that that. if he raised the building on the east side he's going to have no light and air. now, the streams the map of the streams is a little bit off and i would like to see someone come and check it. my problem is this case has gone on very long and the neighbors have a right to have gone through every permit i've seen smut campaigns and i firmly believe this should be sent back to city planning and to the department of building inspection and get a complete

handle on what this project really is. i honestly believe i found out there is another, another drawing that has not been presented to the neighbors and i think that this is beyond -- it's the fact that they are not following the rules and the third and last thing -- is this going to be really 2 units? are they going to do it just like everybody else taking the unit saying they are building 2 units and yet -- >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would wish to speak in support of the appeal? please make your way up to the podium. good. seeing no other members of the public i'd like to turn it over to the planning department staff. >> good afternoon president tang and members of the board.

i'm a senior preservation planner for the planning department and senior environmental planner and environmental review officer. the project is changes to a building at broderick street. the appellants have raised a number of different issues that i'll touch upon in my presentation but it's important to note that none of these issues pertain to environmental review. in other words the peer letters and subsequent corresponds from the appellants do not present substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a significant impact may occur as a result of the project that being said i want to go over briefly a few of the appellant's concerns.

the project violates an agreement, the project is too tall and disrupts the pattern on the street, the changes will impact the historic integrity of the building and the adjoining, the project will eliminate one affordable unit and change the character of the 2-unit building in the area. the project is inappropriate for the street. the agreement between the property owner and the neighbors -- the planning department is not a party to this agreement and as such not responsible for innocent for enforcing the terms. it's a relatively modest change. the buildings in the vicinity

are between 3 and 4 stories in height within the height limit and will not be out of character with the surrounding buildings. largely at the back of the building and minimally advisable visible from the street. as stated in the department's evaluation response, the project is consistent with the interior standards the subject building is an eligible historic district however the changes will not result in impact in this case the district would be materially impaired. the building would retain sufficient integrity and

historic significance. with regard to the building unit merger -- they are not considered affordable by the planning code and further more the appellants have not explained how the merger would actually change the neighbors's character given that the district is significant for its physical attributes and not so for its unit count. with regard to the garden shed at the back of the property the department has determined based upon the proposed size it will not trigger a building permit. while the department acknowledges an error previously the building is within the height limit of the planning code and in any case the information does not change the fact that the project is

exempt from sequa not only lifting the building for a new garage is consistent with the department's design standards and this permit is merely correcting a discrepancy in the plan the majority of the appellant's concerns about inconsistent see with the guidelines specifically to light and air have already been heard by by the planning commission. voted on a 7 to zero vote to approve the project with no modifications. currently pending with the board of appeals on the issue of the building permit. >> the fact remains none of these issues raised by the appellants are sequa sequa issues. none of them will result in a significant impact to the environment. for the

reasons stated at this hearing the department finds it complies with the requirements of sequa while the department appreciates the appellant's concerns they have not provided the substantial evidence therefore the department recommends that the board up upholds the exemption and denies the appeal. >> thank you. seeing none we'll now proceed with the project's sponsor. you can have up to to 15 minutes for a presentation. >> >> good afternoon madam president and members on behalf of the project sponsor, i want to digress a little bit from my prepared notes and i wanted to say and i was going to to emphasize this later i would

have thought i must have walked into a hearing at the board of appeals or perhaps the planning commission. none of those issues are sequa issues. for the members of this board the neighbors here today this will be the 6th administrative hearing they will have had and another one scheduled in january to deal with the release of the suspension of permits and this is the second sequa hearing that these folks have had and the important thing here today this is about whether substantial evidence has been provided by the appellants that support over turning the department's decision and so with that said i'll tell that said proceed with my prepared remarks and because of the length of this --

this has been going on for 5 years and the interesting point about this -- miss white head basically grew up around the corner from this house friends with the daughter of the woman who lives in the house at the time the tragedy fire occurred basically displacing this woman and the fire was caused -- arson by her own child. you know what an opportunity we can move back to the neighborhood where mom grew up and we we can raise our kids here. you don't hear that very often. that's what happened. pam and melinda came in and said we want to create a family home. we want to have a home that our

family can grow and live in in and that's what that's partly what went on. clients or owners have different, you know, ideas and living norms that they have in the house and that's absolutely not true. there have been hearings and as i said board of appeals hearings and nothing has been done in anything but sunlight and the reason why this rather exemption is in front of you is the zoning administrator said i want a complete under taking

and one plan set of everything approved by the board of appeal . that's the exemption in front of you today. those modest expansions that are taking place. with that said i want to go back in time and take us to the 2012 exemption appeal and the the board didn't hold a hearing on that because there was an a settlement agreement and at the time that exemption dealt with the crux of the neighbors concern and then going on to expand the ground floor level towards the rear of the building and again in 2012 exemption issued for that site

permit and related permits. fast forward to today and the exemption in 2012 based on the same evidence that planning department goes through and historic resources using the guidelines and again found after an analysis that there were no impacts from the height or curb cut. we're hear today same appellant, same issues, different scope of work in fact more modest scope of work. the scope of work for this project is we've got 2 roof decks alteration and lowering the main entry threshold once again the planning department engaged in the review of the potential impact to the home's historic features and once again based

on substantial evidence that comes with their training and experience staff found this work would not have a a significant impact and that the proposed site and roof top additions which is not visible from the adjacent public rights of way. again, that's another rule or guideline under the rule of standards. based on substantial evidence the planning department has concluded that there's no significant impact. that's the only question here this isn't this isn't a game of jeopardy. the planning department looks t