and the building will be three times larger than existings it's not a remodel. it violates the planning code and the san francisco building code chapter 16 because during the earthquake this building will sway across the property line causing substantial damage to this building and the adjoining structures. in conclusion the foregoing constitutes unusual circumstances of the project and the project site under ceqa that mixes this exemption unappropriate. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am jackie hog ans and with [inaudible] architecture. we are concerned about the context of the completed work. drawings provided indicate that the finished project may tower over the existing fabric providing what we consider a significant adverse impact. thank you.

>> president breed and honorable supervisors. i am a [inaudible] engineer and geotechnical engineer in the state of california. i have over 45 years experience in practicing geotechnical engineering. my practice has been performed in the san francisco bay bay particularly san francisco. i am familiar with the soil and rock conditions of the [inaudible] under consideration right now. my presentation here right now is based on my review of technical report prepared by [inaudible] technical consulting engineers prepared in 1999 for several

houses down on green street. >> >> it was reported that a massive [inaudible] within a cut behind the neighboring house. based on the findings of the report it appears that the surface condition can be filled. the landfill -- below the fill the site can be [inaudible] sand stone and shale bed rock of the formation. it is my opinion that the site could be unique depending on the degree of weathering and decomposition and sometimes could not be easily exvacated shovels and back hoe equipment. [inaudible] potential [inaudible] maybe required to remove what they

call the (inaudible) of the -- hot sand stone on the site. this initial geological condition affect the site and [inaudible] severely environmental impacts on the land and the environment. i believe that further environmental reveal should be considered and performed including a geologic [inaudible] and possibly excavating tests to evaluate the condition of the bed rock. thank you for your time. >> i am jack oz ward, the appellant today. my wife and i took it upon ourselves because of concerns with the project. others you heard from the experts because they understand the details but there were many things that were concerned. we

are representing the other neighbors, the most immediate neighbors from the area which you probably received letters of support of the appeal and there see there are significant impacts of the sizing of it. one thing that is important from a policy issue from the city and we have solar panels we installed in 2009 and the effect of this structure when done will effectively obit rate the effectiveness of the solar panels and from 1:00 p.m. to sunset and during the year even though the structure has a cable rail that little shading -- for those that don't know how a solar panel works it will shut down the panel and thus the array and by planning will wipe out the investment of ours and the city and given we believe the fact that with minor

changes and reasonable compromise on a few things which we haven't had the opportunity to discuss with the project proposer that we can mitigate these issues. in addition we're concerned about light and air and privacy which also are issues that we've asked to have a discussion about, never were addressed and although on numerous occasions we tried to sit down and suggest mediation we never had the opportunity to do so, what i am requesting today is rather than come to an answer on this hearing today that we agreed to the last postponement that the project sponsor requested and we get more time and instructions by the board and sit down with a mediator which we will pay for and mutual choice of mediator so no burden on them and requirement that they come back with a report and sat down and negotiated like adults and if we

can't agree we can't agree but we never had the opportunity to do so and i hope we have the opportunity to do that today. thank you so much. >> thank you and now at this time we will open it up for those who are here to speak in support of the appeal. there will be an opportunity for those to speak later on who oppose the appeal so at this time if you would like to speak in support of the appeal you will have up to two minutes. can you please come forward? seeing none we will now -- >> [inaudible] >> well, you better hurry up. okay. no? okay. we're moving forward. okay. at this time we will have the planning department present. >> good afternoon president

breed and members of the board employed i am tina tam and a senior preservation planner with the department. today with me is shelly from the preservation staff, joy, senior environmental planner and sara jones an environmental review officer. the project is construct a new addition to the two story house existing as well as widen the existing garage door, install new siding and trim and comply with the boarding code and qualifies for an categorical exemption under environmental review under the code which includes additions to existing structures. the appellant and concerned neighbors have raised different issues they will touch upon in my presentation but none of the issues pertain to environmental review. the

appeal letters do not represent substantial evidence that a significant impact may occur as part of the project. with that said i will go through briefly some of the concerns of the appellant. one, it will impact a historic resource. two, it's too massive and disrupt the street. three, result in a de facto demolition of the structure and four, result in a geotechnical impact on the surrounding neighbors. as indicated in the findings of the departments' report the subject building is not a historic resource and constructed by an unknown builder and altered in 1934 and the bay was added and replaced with stucco. in 2001

the stucco was replaced with the wooden shingle and it is windows were replaced with aluminum sliders. while the original foot print remains the details of the building have been removed or altered. for these reasons the building doesn't qualify as a historic resources under criteria one of the california register. while the building is in the period following the earthquake and fire the building doesn't retain sufficient integrity from that time to qualify as a historic resources. furthermore, we have not -- [inaudible] any person associated with the property. therefore the building doesn't qualify as a historic resources under the california register. included in the appeal response is a letter to the board from the architecture company, a

qualified consultant firm determined that the theme of the department that the building lacks integrity and not eligible as a historic resources. the project will add two stories to the existing building. while the building will change in height it's within the height limit of the planning code. there are many other four story buildings in the neighborhood and the proposed vertical additions setback 5 feet from the existing wall and compatible with the neighboring four story buildings. while the proposed extension of the rear does trigger a rear yard variance the proposed extension matches the depth of the nearby neighbors. the majority of concerns about the project and its inn consistency with the residential guidelines have been heard and vetted by the planning commission. during the hearing the commission voted on 6-0 vote to uphold the department's

recommendation and approve the project without modification s. the zoning administrator heard the variance and granted his approval of the project. the variance approval has been appealed and is pending for february 11 by the board of appeals. with regard to the concerns that the project is a de facto demolition calculations were done confirming that the project met the planning code and is not considered a de facto demolition. compliance with the building code and the protect act would ensure that the project is constructed in a manner that would not significantly affect the stability or otherwise affect the project site on the neighboring properties. for the reasons stated in the appeal response and at this hearing the department finds that ceqa

determination complies with the requirements of ceqa and the project is appropriately exempt from the environmental review. while the department appreciates the concerns of the appellants they haven't given any evidence to refute this and therefore we ask the board to uphold this determination and deny the appeal. >> thank you. at this time we will allow 10 minutes for the project sponsor or representative to present. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is bruno. i'm the owner architect and this is my wife

and my new baby simone and my father who is here representing, he and my mother who will be living with us after we complete the project. i lived in this neighborhood for 20 years and this represents the opportunity for us to be first time homeowners and bring our family together under one roof and we are simply seeking to improve the neighborhood through direct and personal investment in this property, and besides the seismic upgrades we're proposing we hope to make this building a sustainable building and lead certified building. everything you heard from the appellant i have to say are gross exaggerations. we met with them on three occasions, once to see the view from the roof. that's

what the hearing is about. they're concerned about maintaining that view from the roof. despite of all our concessions they contested any proposal of the same floors and four story building or minor impacts of the view from the roof. we met with all of the adjacent neighbors multiple times beginning over a year and a half ago and we are exciting from the overwhelming support from the community including the north beach community association and the south graph hill neighborhood association. based on concerns we made significant changes before submitting to the planning department. we worked closely with the planning department for the design of the house. it's a straightforward project that complies with the zoning code and residential guidelines as you heard from the department. this is not a demolition, not in

the nearest sense. it is an alteration and all of the structure issues brought up are typical issues resolved in the department of building inspection through their process. after several reviews the remodel is supported by the residential 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