ntial design team who we worked with closely because this neighbor would not work with us. at the hearing requested by the appellant the commission voted unanimously in support of our project and didn't take dr. these offers of mediation were only made after department support of the project so i find them very disengenerous and after we made a good faith effort to address all of the concerns by making these concessions we continue to mediate with the planning department because they would work with us in a reasonable way. simply an attempt to stall our project from moving forward. i believe our proposed remodel is very straightforward and stands on its own merits. here you can see the block face of the street, and this is our building in the middle and the

appellate annual --'s block in the right of it and has four stories and we're filling in the gap and. >> >> consistent with the planning code and design guidelines. this sketch here -- briefly this shows where we started the project with a three story front and here we took away the three story front and setback the top two stories to in consideration of views of our neighbor to the west who is completely in support of this project. here you can see from the rear of the project this is where we started. we since removed the roof top penthouse with elevator and the pits in order to preserve the views of the roof top for the neighbor.

it was important to retain accessibility to the area and my parents are elderly and one is wheelchair bound and this was a concession in the attempts that we gave concession to the neighbor by removing the top portions of the building and the front of the building. we've done this -- our building actually is not as tall as the neighbor's building nor as large. i will simply say that here's a good picture of the top of the hill which our building sits at. this is in the neighbor's building and our building here. if you consider that on a horizontal level field the neighbor's building is much taller than ours. it's a 4,000 square foot building. we are proposing 75% of that area so it's an exempteration

-- exaggeration to say that our building is that large. there is no basis for the appeal of the categorical exemption or delay of our project. we did everything we can to meet the neighbor's concerns while meeting the needs of my fam lee. i would like to present arnie learner who will speak to their claim of the issue today of the categorical exemption. thank you. >> i am have been a preservation architect in san for the past 31 years and i wanted to talk today to say there is no basis for supporting this appeal categorical exemption. actually a lot of what i was going to talk about was described already in why

this isn't a historic resource and fittings -- fits in the context of the neighborhood. basically just to repeat the historic reports done talks about this building towering over the other buildings. i'm not sure which block she was on but it's certainly not this building at all. it talks about this building being out of context with the neighborhood buildings and it's not true at all. it's very much in context with it. i guess without repeating what ms. tam said it's basically not a historic resource. it lost all of its inintegritiy and nothing significant happened here and that's why it's not part of the historic district but in term was an electic districts and tall buildings and newer buildings and it fits into a eclectic mix so i want to

encourage you to support the categorical exemption determined by the planning department, and not accept this appeal and i will leave the last two minutes unplanned to bruno. >> well, i guess there's not much more to say. arnie has been very good to detail in the report that was given to you our rebuttal very carefully how this project is not a -- there is any reason to appeal this categorical exemption. all of the materials of the building have been changed over the years. the building has been modified from the 20's and 30's when a bay was added. wednesday have been replaced and are. >> >> windows are replaced and aluminum. the siding is recent in the last 10, 12 years. we

are doing our best to take a building that is extremely distressed and we're trying to bring it back to life and usable for our family. this is a lead project. it's sustainable. we're trying to bring a forward looking building to the community that i think the project really does speak for itself, so if you have any other questions on some of the issues brought up that have nothing really to do with the categorical exemption i am happy to answer those at your leisure. thank you. >> thank you. and now at this time are there any members of the public who would like to speak in opposition of the appeal and in support of the party who is moving forward with this project? you will have

two minutes. please come forward. >> hi. i am trish herman, president of [inaudible] neighbors. on september 8, 2014 mr. and mrs. kanter came to the board of directors meeting at north beach neighbors to demonstrate their plans for this home at 312 green. we saw the plans. the board asked questions and were answered sufficiently and the board voted to support the project. on or about october 15, 2014 i received a letter from jack oswald and his wife with respect to this project and it appears that the drawings that they included in this letter were photo shopped. it demonstrates a distance in the height of the building that doesn't exist in the plans that we saw, so north

beach neighbors supports the program and the project and it's important for us to have young families be able to have three generations live in a single family home. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am stephanie greenberg, a resident of telegraph hill. i am here to support the family who are the owners. i hope that we trust that the planning department researches ceqa issues and makes recommendations that we can trust. the planning department and commission thought it was okay under ceqa and nothing has changed to alter that. the first exemption was granted two years ago. i live by the property and i have level of experience with the situation and i find the appeal of this

determination by the adjacent property owners at 310 green street to be vexing because that property has been left seemingly abandoned -- i guess it's not the case but it's unfinished for a number of years and that has a negative impact on the community and i wish we were here talking about that today. i walk by these properties everyday and frankly i think we have to look at the fact that the kanters are a local family. they're thinking to thoughtfully help this distressed property. they have followed the rules and did the outreach and want to move forward preparing the property for full time residency. they want to be part of the community. there are good and bad projects and all review our review. this meets all codes and requirements and is a reasonable obstruction of well vetted and approved project and i hope sees fit to allow this

project to move forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello i am peter spa pony and on urban architecture in san francisco and i was the project architect responsible for the renovation of the council chamber a number of years ago. i agree with all of the planning department findings. this isn't close to requiring -- not meeting the requirements. the building is old. it's been remodeled several times. they're in filling it. the neighbors had massive renovations. they're building -- even after all of the additions it's taller than the kanters project and filling a gap in the urban project and have additional setbacks but more importantly the neighbor shows they're going to no limits to fight and delay the project. at the very first neighborhood

planning meeting they threatened our clients saying they would use guns if necessary to defend their property rights. that is not the way to start the planning process and regardless of that my clients went through every step and met with everyone and diligent. i have known them for 30 years. he's lived here. he's been saving living in a one bedroom in north beach building his career and practice. met his wife. bought their first house -- saved up, bought a house. doing a sensitive green contextual remodel and opposed at every step and getting a place for the families. please see this appeal for what it is and allow the project to move forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am ron and an a tekt and live in the city and practice in the city of san francisco. i wasn't sure what i was going to

say here today but some of the things discussed by the appellant i couldn't resist so i will go down the list. we heard issues about the solar panels and the impact that the 312 would have on the panels and i looked at some of the diagrams that were given and they're just without merit. the one diagram showed a december 21 day which is the time where the sun is the lowest on the horizon and i will tell you that a fly on the sidewalk will cast a shadow on the panels so it's not valid. my background -- i actually consult with the san francisco international airport on solar panels so i do this all the time. i know what i am talking about. as far as mediation opportunities my friend bruno kanter has reached out several time to the appellate and to no

avail and there were ample opportunities given. only after the unanimous ruling they reached out and suggested mediation. you know the time is up and the decision was unanimous decision. i think moving forward we heard today about a construction issues. we heard about the effect this project would have on seismic. that's what we have dbi for folks. let these people move on with their lives and approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is grant and a friend of bruno and suzanne. we were roommates in college at cal poly and over seas. i had the messy half of the dorm room. i want to take this opportunity to read through a list of the roster of people who have written support letters for their project. the

majority of the people are north beach residents and small business owners and they include the north beach neighbors organization, south telegraph hill whom you heard from, ronald soaper, marianne kantder, terry johnson, [inaudible] lauren gray williams. smairn mendez nazi, -- peter who spoke a while ago. jan mopin, mike debennetty, -- steve [inaudible]. lisa duncan. heather po lard, [inaudible] ashland per, mr. and mrs. morales, [inaudible] mathue lou, marisa [inaudible]

(reading names off list). thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hi. i am bridgette kanter. i am bruno's story. i would like to. >> >> sister: i would like to read a letter opposite the appellates. from the lees. this is a letter for qualified support for the residential reconstruction at 312 green street. we have always assumed this small bungalow would be remodeled with an additional

story. we have seen the expansions of the properties to the east of 312 green at 310 and 308 green street. the construction will have significant impact on the property but on balance we support it because the owners, bruno and suzanne kakter worked with us to mitigate the impacts and the light well and common roof deck would result from any expansion of the property. we have been meeting with them over the past year and they have been to our home to observe and discuss the concerns. their latest plans respect and mitigate our concerns to the extent possible given they're adding two floors to the building. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> i am a neighborhood friend,

long time friend of bruno and a homeowner in north beach and being here today brings back memories when i had a distressed property i was trying to make changes to and the last meeting where they had the unanimous decision there was a mixed feeling and sigh of relief and now you're on to the next step and the eir was the next delay tactic and i wasn't surprised and similar to the steps i went through bringing my property back to life. fortunately we were able to complete this project and bruno is able to do because with north beach more of the middle class workers are pushed out of the neighborhood with the rising rental and home costs so when i heard bruno was able to buy a property after saving money and being here i was thrilled to know he would be here with his new child and his wife and brings his parents in

and what north beach is based on and the extended family and to see the delay tactics to take away from the family and chaos is crazy. especially with this neighbor. i was there for a holiday party on green street and i heard the rukt us going on and what was going on out there and she was harass because of a parking issue and they can't be happy in their own neighborhood and to me it's greed. he doesn't live full time in san francisco and full time heldalds burg and visits occasionally. >> i am the homeowner. this has been a journey and i for over three years. >> can you move down the mic so we can hear you. >> we have followed all of the processes and meetings with the neighbors and making

concessions to them. we hoped to be in the house now with our infant daughter. i had a daughter in this process and the process what moved on and on while the remaining appeal is resolved and today's decision and we thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak at this time? okay. with that we are going to move forward and ask the appellant for a rebuttal. you will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you madam president and supervisors. i think what you're seeing today is a fairly stark difference in narratives about what's happened. the project sponsor has done a pretty good job of crafting a narrative that is not kriet right, not quite what happened on this block. for example

there is discussion about changes to accommodate neighbors but most of the changes, the significant once were required by the planning department as part of the residential design process. the letter of support read was noted a letter of qualified support because there were special accommodations made for one particular property that has not been engaged with the other neighbors. we have spoken with the immediate neighbors of this property. you will receive or have received in the last couple of days a number of letters from them but my understanding is they are feeling intimidated because of the character attacks, adhomium attacks directed at the appellant here and mentioned in the discretionary hearing. a discussion about bringing big guns was a discussion about lawyers and for that to be brought up and used again and

again simply is not fair and not how we do things in san francisco. there are serious unusual environmental circumstances pertaining to this property. perhaps most notably from the geotechnical report which was not sulfur by the planning report or department and will have impacts on the neighbors. >> interesting enough the only structural engineer is myself. no one from the project sponse or planning has looked at it. doesn't it seem strange that the only person talking about rebuilding the building is myself. it is a demolition. the plans show it as a demolition. you cant take a two story building and i can show you this around the city and deconstruct it to make a four

story building. under the code the walls have to be redone and you can't do that without deconstructing the first and second wall. it also requires the foundation be removed. the roof is being removed. the original permit in 1907 which is a very, very early reconstruction period building. wood frame buildings weren't built until 06 and this was one of the first once rebuilt is including the removal of the second floor. there is nothing left of the building and it is a demolition and should be sulfur like that. >> >> thank you. this is now in the hands of the board of supervisors. we have

these items before us. supervisor christensen from the district would you like to make comments at this time? >> yes please madam president. it pains to have in my first board meeting to look at an issue that involves two neighbors arguing with one another. i regret that. north beach certainly is a neighborhood and one person can't roll over without affecting the person next to them and it's seldom possible to make changes to the properties in the neighborhoods without having impacts on others. i regret the acmoney that developed between the neighbors is likely to color the relationship going forward. i always think that is unfortunate to be in a position living next door to someone you had a war and i hope at some future date for both your sakes bigones can be bigones. when there are

questions of this type we turn to guidelines>> >> and we have learned what to expect and allows us to predict other people's actions as well as plan our own. the building building department has done that and everything up to now has affirmed that. with that said i have seen all over the neighborhood people go further than those regulations allow in order to accommodate their neighbors needs and in order to maintain good will for those around them. from what i have seen the project sponsor has made some good faith efforts to

adjust his property to accommodate the needs of his neighbors. i recognize that for mr. oswald this change is not a positive one that your roof deck, your solar array will be impacted. the thing about the regulations and the codes is that is something that could be predicted based on what the city allows, and so to put a solar array where one day there could be a building slightly taller than yours probably deserved consideration. for our sake our purview here is unfortunately not to determine whether mr. oswald's solar array should be able to operate or have use from his roof. our purview is whether or not the ceqa determination was accurate, and based on the information i have

seen it was accurate and sufficient and complete so using ceqa in this case is difficult because it does not deal with the issues that matter most to you. we are limited to consideration of that topic, and there's nothing that i have heard today or from planning that indicates to me there is any failure in the ceqa review for this project so for myself i would support item 19 and the denial of the appeal of affirmation of the determination of the exemption. >> so supervisor christensen is that a motion to move forward with item number 19 and table items 20 and 21? >> and any league com -- comments. >>

>> up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant with a pound representative and at this time, without objection will move forward and allow the appellant representative to speak. >> good afternoon. i'm the appellant dr. robert harris. i'll start with health issues. the planning commission did not properly apply the following sections of the planning code. section 303, condition [inaudible]. when not be detrimental to the health safety or welfare of persons right residing in this vicinity. in response to this, the final motion to the height and bulk of the building accessibility, landscaping, they did mention preventing emissions. just fine, but smoking has been prohibited since 1980s. by this conditional use, we are referring to the unhealthy

effects of the [inaudible]. the cigarettes [inaudible] e cigarettes containing nicotine and the [inaudible] in the basement. in 2008 the board of so supervisors unanimously passed and that the fine tobacco to [inaudible]. the language disorder and supports our position. it states, tobacco paraphernalia excusing -- it states the gold this organization establishment. and related health safety and general welfare problems. in the city's commercial district. it defined tobacco paraphernalia to me devices that are designed for smoking or inhaling the products prepared from tobacco which