collect the signatures from voters can wildly fluctuate because it's based number that voted in the last mayoral election and it's arbitrary and makes no sense to use that. we will look at what the state passed and san francisco specific challenges to come up with strong ballot reform legislation -- again not in anyway restrict or make it harder to put things on the ballot but give the authors every opportunity to put their best foot forward when you have an item that gets on to the ballot and finally today our budget analyst released a report about fire trucks and specifically what the fire department may be able to do to makes it fire trucks to better navigate san francisco many narrow streets. the fire department has expressed concern about various streetscape

projects in san francisco and wants streets to be wider to accommodate the trucks and i think it's important for the department to take a hard look whether there are things to do with their trucks and placement of equipment to navigate the streets in our city. fire safety is incredibly important and so is street safety. we have too many people injured and kills on our streets and we need to embrace this and the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor wiener. president breed. >> thank you. colleagues as many of you have heard and seen in the media recently on january 9, friday at 10:00 o'clock there were four young men murdered in my district and the western edition hayes valley neighborhood of our community and i realize as supervisor this definitely impacts our district but this impacts the entire city and i do

really appreciate all of the support provided to me and members of my community by my colleagues and by the mayor. i want to thank those that held our prepare vigil with the community yesterday. matte scott of the healing circle and shawn richard with brothers against guns. family and friends and others came out including our own police chief who is very involved as well as officers from northern police station under the leadership of captain greg mc grekin. the hayes valley neighborhood association was in full force and the african-american complex held the event along with m homagic. i wanted to. >> >> bring to light this particular issue because it's important that we do as policy makers make sure that we are working with these communities, working to prevent these from happening and making sure that

our young people get the services, get the support and education and everything that they need in order to be successful. some of these young men were very active at the african-american cultural complex when i was director. others i know from the family members. they are definitely devastated and this not only impacted their families it devastated our community so what we can do now here in this chamber is more than ever as we move forward and begin to make policy changes -- especially along budget priorities. i will definitely be working closely with my neighborhood associations with some of the community based organizations with the school district and others in order to make sure that we are getting to these young people before they are victims and perpetrators of crime. last but not least a plea that i make to my community

that we can no longer sit idly by and let this destroy our community. some of us maybe in situations where we have children or grandchildren or nieces or nephews or kids who are involved in this and who are carrying guns. we have got to get these guns out of their possession and off of the streets and it is now our responsibility. the police has been active and helping us to address this issue of violence, but more importantly we as a community and what we talked about last night with a number of community members we've got to take responsibility from within and make sure that we are turning in those who continue to harm others in our community, so a lot to be done, and i just want to thank everyone for their support and we're going to continue to work on this issue so that violence doesn't -- not

only exists in the western edition community we get rid of violence throughout the city and it's important to me and my colleagues here. i have one other item. the city was recently noticed on sunday january 11 that the addition known as yoshi's san francisco is closing. we were told the last show is today, tuesday, january 13 and despite the closure the fillmore heritage center will be a cornerstone of the jazz district and the operations of the acclaimed restaurant on fillmore which is a anchor business and cultural gathering place for the neighborhood. 1300 on fillmore is vibrant and open for business and we are thankful to the employees and entertainers and others that served for their

dedication to san francisco and the fillmore. yoasho's opening and the fillmore heritage center opening and the restaurant infused the neighborhood with energy to advance the area's history as a center of entertainment and culture. significant public and private investment in turn lead to a number of neighborhood businesses, streetscape improvement projects and cultural events that have contributed to a renewed vibrancy along a corridor once devastated by the san francisco redevelopment agency. the fillmore has long shown itself to be a resilient neighborhood and the entrepreneurial spirit remains strong along that corridor. in addition new businesses like state bird provisions and the sister restaurant, the progress and fat angel, the electrical bicycle super store and the koreanian

restaurant joined with several of the long standing establishments to offer entertainment, food, retail and culture to the city and the neighborhood and continues to attract new establishments and a new barbecue establishment that will open at 1325 fillmore street and brooklyn circus, amazing clothing store. we stand by the businesses and the residents in the fillmore and continue the area businesses including through mayor lee's investment and neighborhood's initiative which provides assistance to strengthen existing businesses, improve physical conditions and increase the quality of life in 25 commercial districts approximate in the city. i will work

diligently with the mayor and the board of supervisors to welcome new investments to the corridor including the fillmore heritage center site where the city will pursue all options to activate the site while serving community needs to ensiewsh the vitality of that community. thank you and the rest i submit. >> thank you madam president and seeing no other names on the roster that includes roll call for the introduction of new business. >> okay. with that madam clerk and colleagues we have before ution now the appeal of the ceqa categorical exemption -- we're not at 3:00 o'clock. >> [inaudible] >> okay. madam clerk can you please read the next item. >> items 18-21 comprise a hearing of persons interested in the determination of categorical exemption under the review by

the california environmental quality act for the proposed project. at 312 green street. item 19 reversing that and item 20 reversing and item 21 finding for the determination. >> okay. we will look at the departments planning determination that the proposed project at 312 green street is categorically exempt for review under ceqa. without objection we will proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellant or the representative. up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to 10 minutes for a presentation from the planning department. up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representative. up to two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal and

finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or the representatives. colleagues are there any objections to the proceeding? seeing none we will move forward. and we will ask for the appellant or representative to come forward. thank you. you can -- madam clerk are you ready with the time? >> i will set the time madam president as soon as he starts speaking. >> okay thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am ryan paterson and i represent jack os ward and

oncaseally. our request is for a expansion project and at the crest of telegraph hill at castle and the quaint 1907 home with the addition of two new stories and roof deck. although the project sponsor characterized this as a remodel it actually qualifies as demolition and new construction. many projects are categorically exempt from ceqa but this isn't and will result on significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. the project is not code compliance and requires a variance. the it's the architect and a conflict of interest. we ask that the project steak the neighborhood's needs into. >> >> consideration and properly sulfur under ceqa. >> good afternoon. i am a

licensed sieve civil engineer in san francisco and work on san francisco structures. >> >> specifically older structure empl on . >> >> i have concluded that a number of potentially significant environmental impacts will result from this project beyond which is normal for a project of this type due to unusual circumstances. project description. under planning code and building code section the project constitutes a demolition, not a remodel. there would be almost nothing left of the original structure and require all framing on the existing two floors, walls and second floor. the roof will be

removed. all of the interior walls are rebuild. the foundation will be removed and a new foundation installed. the new roof will be higher on the building. the existing second floor will be gutted. the wawls, the kitchen and electrical and plumbing and i believe also the second floor is being removed. the original framing from 1907 is two by eight. that's not what is being built here and according to the elevation the second floor is at another elevation. effectively 90% of the structure will be removed. this project should have been sulfur by this and. >> >> and they're going to salvage demolition material and filter it back into the new framing. the sponsor also states the existing structure 1900 feet and the assessor says

it's over a thousand. they say they're adding a thousand feet but we show 2400 of inhabitable deck 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