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 at the scope of work before it, again, goes through the analysis that they have done and concluded that they have here that there's no significant impact. substantial evidence you have been told and know from

previous appeals is really the linchpin of your decision here. substantial evidence is facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts and expert opinions supported by facts. you see the common theme here is there must be facts. what substantial evidence is not is argument, speculations un substantiated opinion or inaccurate or economic impacts which do not contribute to to the environment. i would argue that the appellants have put no substantial evidence in the record nothing there they haven't provided any today to use as an example as a result of the height lift first of all that was addressed in in the 2012 categorical exemption. it is the impact on the house not people so the issue here what has been done to the house the

planning department concludes twice there is nothing and particularly with respect to the exemption in front of you today the scope of work is extremely modest no impact will occur. >> i will acknowledge that one page was put in the papers all the bullet points again had nothing to do with the sequa issues they were again trying to capture that again there was a potential impact to the people because of loss of light and privacy. these are not substantial evidence they are un substantiated opinion no expert evidence offered they could have gone out and retained a historic expert they did not. under sequa doesn't rise to the level of substantial

evidence to overturn the planning department's decision. the real issue here is the height of the building and the permit. nobody has hidden anything. again there was a discretionary review hearing on the height of the building. there was a board of appeals hearing on that permit. the board of appeals dealt with some minor modifications on the side. the cad-x before you today zoning has to be prepared in order for the suspension to be lifted and it is that the existing conditions that were approved by the board of appeals and yet to be approved conditions. that plan was dr's so to say they were not aware of those plans is

just patent ly not true. they came and made many of the same arguments you heard today. the planning commission again voted 7 to nothing and then filed the appeal at the same time they have -- when the they appealed that suspension. that will be heard by the board of appeals and quite frankly everything they raised today -- they are the body to deal with disputes regarding issue issue ance of permits and they have a wide ranging purview of what they can do. when the permit is finally issued by dbi, that

permit will also be appealed to the board of appeals and they, too, will make a decision on whateveral allegations the appellants want to raise. you can't lower the height. i know the settlement agreement we can argue we can go on and on about that but the bottom line it's a private agreement. they are free to go to court. the city the city should be a party to it. the city is not a party to it therefore the city can't enforce it. none of these rise to the level of substantial evidence. based on sequa and 16 b 6 you would have to find there's absolutely no substantial evidence in the

record you have to find this document document as adequate and you should deny the appeal. thank you very much. >> seeing no questions for the project sponsors, i'd like to invite any members of the public who are supporting -- sdmroo >> i'm sorry i think i have 3 minutes and some seconds remaining. >> good afternoon madam president and supervisors i was hoping to get out of talking but do i have 7 and a half minutes? >> you have 3 minutes remaining. >> there's a long history to this project i'm looking forward to it being over. i think it's very unfortunately

it's come back to this body and that the appellant continues to persist after so many complaints all of which have been addressed it's very frustrating for me as the architect for this project that i have to get up here and defend defend that it's okay to have lowered the door 18 inches. really i think everybody has missed that including the planning department the focus of this sequa is about lowering the front door and the front porch that's visible from the street because those things are visible from the street. the dorm ers in the back are behind the roof; they are not visible from the street. everything else the appellant has brought

up are subject to permitting issues and all of those permitting issues are being handled now with the building department. he continues to obstruct the process by asking for more things. the project sponsor continues to address them and more complaints arise. i've had it. >> thank you and now at this time i'd like to call up any members that wish to support the public sponsors so if there's anyone here from the public please line up. last call. all right seeing none then our hearing under item 37 has been held and is now closed. >> oh, i apologize let me take that back and offer the

appellants the opportunity for rebuttal 5 minutes total so you may do so at this time. >> appellants were very pleased to have had an agreement after 4 months to start construction and build the home that she wanted to build. what's behind this issue is a back story. 2821 broderick was bought by another individual and that individual proceeded to to remod l it was remodeled for a couple of years and convert i

convert convertible into a home this is a dollars and cents issue. what you see happening here is the building out of history out of homes in san francisco for greed and profit. i think it is important for us to remember that diversity of housing allowing the diversity of individuals to live in the neighborhood whether middle class or upper middle class whatever they are it's a blessing. it allows the kind of neighborhood that we have always had in calhalo build the history out of them and create mansions that can then be sold for incredible amount of money. it will create a lower density but it will make a golden ghetto. and the kind of home and diversity the kind of wonderful neighbors that we

have had, that's going to be gone and the issue whether this is in fact an impact on people other than the building is false. i think mr. moore testified to what happens when buildings are raised to such a degree and there's no air and light. you can see what happens with underground streams when the water is backed up and you can see in fact what's happening when roof tops are expanded to such a degree in fact you don't have the kind of environment that you had once before. the point of the matter is that this issue should have never happened had the project sponsor followed the rules. that's what we have asked all along. follow the rules. had she gone on july 1st 2013 corrected her plans and came back on a notice to their

neighbors we could see we could have been done in very short order but in fact no one knows what she really wants to do. when i met with ron and he told me he asked them to bring in the materials and he and one of the top engineers went through to look at it and he said to me mr. zuretski we could not decipher an alignment between the works and plans the work in progress and the work to be done and hence forth they asked bring us clear, distinct plans so we can see what the project is about and this is why the supreme court in the laurel heights case said in in sequa the neighborhood should have the total ity and whole view of what the project is about the question of logo

lowering the doors 18 inches found a new life i'm sure as we get through the hearing new permits will emerge that's the that's the mod u.s. operandi of this project sponsor. we're asking the preservation of the neighborhood and asking for families to return to san francisco of course. you are looking at one individual who was raised in a flat and turned out to be a pretty good person . i think our supervisor was raised in a flat. i think that we ought to remember that there are other ways to live except in mansions.

[applause]. >> >> thank you. now at this time our hearing under item 37 has been held and is closed now item 38 and 40 are in the hands of the board. supervisor farrell. >> thank you madam farrell. colleagues in terms of this -- we've been working on this for years an incredible amount of time over the years. since then new plans and applications have come up that were submitted

to record will to rectify that the that the neighbors filed a dr not taken by the planning commission and today what's in front of us is a cad-x appeal regarding the project that was approved in july at the planning department. over the last few weeks we continue at this board a few weeks ago until today and i want to thank all the neighbors for coming as well as planning and dvi and everyone else from the city staff and also the project sponsor and her attorney to discuss the concerns. as we all attempted to broker a compromise as well but unfortunately this time around was unsuccessful as much as we tried. i will say that

over all, you know, i have a number of issues with how this has been handled over the years this project including you know, how the project sponsor has or has not worked with the neighbors i think there's frustrations on the both ends. i think the neighbors are fortunate to have mr. zuresky bird dogging this issue for a number of years and i do wish a compromise could have been reached and i understand the frustration. that all being said our hands are tied here. we have to look at environment issues now. there were germane issues raised and i've looked and looked and in good faith i can not say there's an environmental issue here with this project that should overturn the planning department decision from an environmental perspective. you

know whether it be the lifting of the property and the height issue one of the major issues and i understand exactly what happened here and you know, the unit merger i i understand concerns around that again that's a permitting issues we have very strict limitations in terms of how we can look at this and you know, at the end of the day dvi is going to review the plans. if there's anything new that gets submitted it gets reviewed to planning and if it's substantially different then it's going to be looked at in another environmental go through. you know, i want to be clear for me this is far from a stamp of approval on this project i wish it was handled differently i'm very very frustrated i and my staff

spent a ton of time on this issue and the job today whether the planning department and i just don't see any evidence to the contemporary at all despite my reservingations. i'm going to table items 39 and 40. >> motion seconded by supervisor campos. all right. colleagues can we take this same house same call or do we need a roll call vote? all right so the motion has been made to affirm item 38 without objection the determination of the categorical exemption is now affirmed now item -- madam clerk if you could read our second 3:00 p.m. special order.

>> pursuant to a motion for items 41 through 42 to consider the proposed resolution. to approve actions the subject of item 42 actions by the commission on community investment in a site designated for affordable housing for the construction of the transbay transit center. >> thank you for this item i'd like to first offer the opportunity for the district supervisor and sponsor supervisor kim for comments proceeded by miss tiffany bohe with that supervisor kim. >> thank you. however tjp is

not able to draw down on the loan until certain conditions are met. we're currently on track to meet the conditions in in late 2015. the construction costs in the interim many of my colleagues will remember some some of the concerns that come up over the fact that we really operate almost month to month during some of the some of the controversies back in september and to this legislation is necessary to close the loan. it allows the city to subordinate the specified

interest related to certain parcels of land in order to use these parcels as collateral. the loan will be repaid as soon as the loan is drawn down and the cost for the 12-month loan program can be covered within our existing phase one budget. the legislation has no impact on the city and the legislation was unanimously approved by the finance committee and it's important to note regardless of the repayment status of the bridge loan it will still be subject and i urge my colleagues to support the resolutions so the

interim construction funding can proceed. we have members on hand and i see our director tiffany bohe to speak on behalf of the agency. >> thank you supervisor kim and president tang and supervisors as the district supervisor indicated we do recommend your approval of these transaction documents both if your legislative capacity as the city as well as supervisor kim outlined this bridge loan allows the development of certain parcels parcel f to go forward while this bridge loan is outstanding and even if a worst case scenario, if the unlikely event happens that the lender forecloses on the property which we don't think