walking in at any moment. actually, we are waiting for supervisor campos, so we can use this time efficiently, what we move to -- oh, supervisor campus just walked in. supervisor campos. we have our 3:30 special order in the floor is yours. >> my apologies. i had to step out to go to an nt a meeting of the board of directors briefly. it is my pleasure to do a proclamation recognizing social workers and social workers month.

i would like to ask martha stein who is here with a number of folks from san francisco state. if i can ask martha and them to please come forward. this proclamation recognized as march 2011 as social work month. there are more than 640,000 professional social workers in the united states. these are individuals who led dedicated their careers to helping people transform their lives. the social work program was established more than 100 years ago to provide people with the tools and the support they need to overcome adversity, whether it is poverty, addiction -- this

group of professionals is about helping people reach their full potential. the social work profession also works to change the system and questions the limits of vulnerable individuals and groups to lead the filled lives. the promotes social work education as a way for socially- conscious people to make a difference in the world. from my experience, i know that social workers believe they have the ability and the responsibility to effect positive change for the future. we are fortunate the we have so many people doing this kind of work, and we have a number of folks, social workers, who have distinguished themselves in some many capacities. just to name a few -- our

colleague supervisor of los -- avalos, margaret, the director of new date for learning, neil, a paramedic captain with the sentences go fire department. that is just to name a few i just want to say on behalf of district 9, i issued his proclamation and the entire board of supervisors recognizes social workers in designating this month. [applause] >> i just want to say thank you. there would be more robust here,

but hopefully there are more robust providing -- there are more of us providing jobs, providing services. thank you so much. and a this is a challenging time economically for everybody. i know it is so critical we work effectively together. >> my name is steve. ibm a property manager for the san francisco -- i am a property manager for the san francisco social work department. thank you, supervisor. i think it is unprecedented we have an opportunity to address the supervisors'chamber.

-- supervisors' chambers. mixed in with the budget deficit, it is our endeavor to remain a viable, working school of social work for the city and county of san francisco as well. we want you to be supportive of our efforts, and thank you very much. [applause]

supervisor chiu: colleagues, at this time, if we can go to our 4:00 p.m. special order. madam clerk, if he would read items 47 through 50. >> item 47 is a hearing of persons interested in the planning department decision dated april 8, 2010. it is exempt from environmental review. item 48 is a motion of forming the planning department determination that the project at ord street is exempt from environmental review. and item 49 is a motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the project is exempt from environmental review. supervisor chiu: for this

hearing, we will consider the adequacy, the efficiency, and the planning department's determination that the project was exempt from environmental review. we will then take public comment from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the public. each speaker will have up to two minutes to speak. we will then hear from the planning department, of which will have several minutes to describe their objective. then we will have a party of interest who will have up to 10 minutes. we will then hear from members of the public. each speaker will have up to two minutes. finally, there will be two minutes for a bottle. colleagues, are there any questions? supervisor wiener, do you have any opening comments?

supervisor wiener: nothing at this time. supervisor chiu: what do we hear from the representative to the appellate? mr. williams. >> thank you. i am stephen williams representing the neighbors association which includes the area of 17th and markets. the environmental exemption was given to this project because the department simply failed to conduct the required environmental review for this project, period. the review was not done. two, the department description was wrong. it is a completely different projects. 3, the wrong categorical exemption was applied because

the review was done for a different project. the team even had the incorrect address. as a result, this led the department to award the exemption. this is still incorrect. hopefully you received my -- attached thereto is the internal document in question. please review with. exhibit two is the historic evaluation bonds, and three is supplement to that document he the -- to the document. this is the heart of the appeal. it is stamped on the third page of exhibit 3. this was done for a completely different project, a different address, different physical

location. and obviously a different impact pita -- all to see a different impact. the last page of the categorial exemption was changed two years later. this is the conclusion reached at the end of the analysis. the substance of the review, the description of the project, all remains the same. only the conclusion has changed. essentially, the department agreed with the appeal. however, the department is not bothered to tell the a talent that they changed the categorical exemption. they did not tell me as counsel they were changing the categorial exemption. to me, that is just wrong.

i protested this sleight of hand by the department, and they said regardless of the outcome of this appeal, as a matter of policy in fairness going forward, if the department is going to retroactively alter an environmental document which is under appeal to this board, the subject of the appeal, that the board required that the department test, that it tell the appellant they are going to change the categorical exemption. just as a matter of courtesy and fairness. not notifying the environmental review was going to be retroactively alter gives -- altered gives the impression of secret processes p.o. -- secret processes. not informing us is the game

playing. it is an attempt to create a statute in this chamber. in this particular case, there was a mistake made. this is the subject site. the project started out as a minor alteration of 136 ord street, fall 2008. the project was reviewed. that is exhibit two and three. on december 31, 2008, the department found that the cottage was not an historical source, and therefore the alteration of requested could go forward. for reasons of his own, the developer abandoned the project

to alter 136 ord street, and in july 2009 instead presented an entirely different project, a project to build a three-story building right in the middle of the green space that you see. this is the approximate location of the new project. this is where the error occurred. instead of revisiting early environmental determination, the department just carried the previous determination forward as though it were the same project. it got lost in the shuffle. however you want to characterize it, a mistake was made. the environmental determination made to the planning commission also identify the project as a minor alteration of an existing structure.

and it also determines -- that is the determination of the appeal, that it is a minor alteration of an existing project p.o. -- existing project. they found that the cottage at 136 ord street was not and historical resources in the neighborhood was not an historic district, so there was no need for a new evaluation. this is wrong as a matter of law. the two questions the department must answer -- whether or not the cottage is an historic resources and whether the district is an historic district are not the only questions that must be answered. the impact must be reviewed.

it is obviously far different, and it should have been produced for this new project at 134 ord street. there is a required review of the impact on nearby and a decent resources. this is also an adjacent public restores. either one of those buildings -- 126 or 140 -- is even mentioned in any hrer. minor alteration obviously does not have the same impact on me surrounding area.

it certainly may have different significant impacts. so, here is some of what was omitted from the review. our experts will go over it in more detail. will the properties be adversely compromise? this should be in there somewhere. what are the visual impacts? part of the significance of 140 is its front garden. what is the effect the new project would have on the historic setting, and particularly 134, on the wall on the north edge of that restores? will the historic significance of the specific resources acknowledged by the city be impacted and adversely affected? we do not know because the review was not done.

if you look at the report, they start to address it in the last page of the response they filed for the appeal here. the conclusion is the minor alteration project is identical, and that has to be the conclusion for the exact same hrer. this is simply incorrect as a matter of law. it defies reason. it defies common sense p.o. -- it defies common sense. let me also clear up some of the confusion and the distraction that has come from the department and the developers' representatives in this case.

the appeal is not requesting an eir. the appeal is not claiming the gardens are in historic resources. the appeal is not claiming the neighborhood is an historic district. the claim is not that the cottage is an historic resource. those are no where in the appeal. those are strong man arguments propped up in order to be knocked down and cause fusion -- confusion. if you hear those arguments, i asked you invite the developer to point out where those arguments up here, anywhere in our submission in the appeal. they simply are not their. based on the fact that this project is not reviewed, and we have a different project, a

different address, different project description, and there are adjacent in nearby recognized historic resources which may well be affected by this new project, the three- story building -- we ask that you send this back to a proper review, and the proper thing the department should have done is revisiting the new project at 134 ord street -- [bell rings] thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions? let me ask if there are members of the public would like to speak. >> members of the board of supervisors -- i have been attending a lot of public meetings, including meetings of the planning commission and the board of appeals.

unfortunately, i have noticed a lot of deference to the department. in other words, the members of the board of appeals are supposed to look at qualifications under california law in building codes and issues like that. none of them have that. one member has a bachelor's in architecture. none of them have a concept of the public laws relating to building code and things like that. as a result, i find that they are totally dependent on the recommendations of the department. and basically in the hearings that often sit there and ask questions which would get them to the point where they could make the decision they have already determined to make. unfortunately what happens is the city department makes the decisions, and in their efforts to have a good relationship with the department, they simply rubber-stamp it in many cases. i think we have all heard about

the case of jimmy johnson and the 500 different diagrams affecting 100 different projects in the city. the response of the planning department was "oh, no big problem." these were not reviewed by architects or licensed engineers, and as a result, the planning department said, "0, that is okay. no harm, no foul." until one of them collapses. if this review was not done properly, then it should be sent back. if you want to do a project in the city, do it right. follow through. get everyone in the process, the planning department and the portability of -- the board of appeals in the planning commission. supervisor chiu: thank you.

again, if you can keep your comments to the adequacy of the review. >> thank you, president of the board of supervisors. it is my point of view that the planning commission is in fact a functional organization. and this is apparent in many instances in the city where you see new structures replacing old historical structures. what it really comes down to is the fact that san francisco city government is really not working. and you need not look further than the dm museum which is a brand new structure that speaks nothing of our history for our

past -- for our past. you need look no further than the corner of stanley and eighth street. that used to be a stable. now it is a mcdonald's that serves bad full -- the serbs that food. how do you do this without the cooperation of the planning department? there is no city on the west coast that gets away with more than the city as far as getting around the regulations of the planning department, getting around environmental impact reviews. and it is all the same guy. bill. as long as he has got the money coming in. thank you. supervisor chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak?

if you could use the microphone to your rights. >> hello, i am sarah sobel. i wish i had known about categorical exemptions years ago. i have spoken frequently with planning from the beginning of this to understand what had to happen in what order and what steps. i am disappointed we are at this place. the planning department should have gotten this right in the first place. the rules need to be followed. it is very clear that the proper steps were not taken. we have a categorical exemption for our remodel project. that was incomplete in that it failed to address these situations are round the lot. it was probably an oversight,

but planning use that same exemption for an entirely new project. it is simply a mistake in the steps were never taken to know why or how the intent of the error is irrelevant to what is important is planning is legally required to do an analysis that has not taken place to date. it is clear that planning altered the documents without doing due diligence in the process. it just has not happened. it is in poor in that state employees the rules and laws that govern us. [bell rings] it is important we do the analysis before the project is even approved. supervisor chiu: next speaker. >> hello. my name is jason sobel. i think this is fairly open and

shut. there's a process that has to be followed as part of many construction process. clearly the mistake was not caught by planning. we simply ask that you require the proper process be followed on this project. i do not see how this is subjective in any way. i hope you will support the appeal. thank you for your time. >> supervisors, i am judith hoyem, and i am supporting the appeal. the unique block of ord is beloved in the neighborhood. we do feel the process should be followed properly.

and we are going to consider having a building in the middle of that garden. we want to feel very confident that the planning department has done the diligence. and apparently that did not happen. whatever, what ever happened, the review and analysis of the categorical exemption simply was not done for this project. you already heard in great detail the categorical exemption attached to this project was actually done for a completely different project. with different impacts. this new project is a new building on the lot. the old project, the regional project, was an alteration of an existing building. you also heard that it was not

picked up by the department. this was not mentioned in the categorical exemption. it is significant for this new project. the new project is immediately adjacent to an historic resource. this needs to be considered. we want an honest and sincere review. to see whether there are any environmental impacts. [bell rings] so, please be asked you -- supervisor chiu: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is f. joseph butler, a

member of the american association of architects. i testified today as an architect and expert with more than 25 years' experience in my field. my credentials have been accepted by the planning department as meeting the secretary of the interior's qualifications. it is clear from reviewing the documents in the department filed that the exemption was made on a supplemental information form, by overlooking three nearby historic resources identified in a 1968 survey. one of those properties has a high degree of integrity, but this project will create significant negative impact. likewise, the president of this project --