-- has been bought setbacks, 142 ord and 140 ord, that may be caused over time. the substantial cumulative impacts have been studied. it is my professional opinion that the project as proposed will cause substantial adverse change to the adjacent historical resources. it will suffer losses to three aspects of its integrity -- design, feeling, and safety. it is too late to suggest the hand written correction substitute one exemption for another. the planning commission cannot rehear this case.

[bell rings] supervisor chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? >> my name is daniel -- supervisor chiu: could you pull the microphone closer to you? >> my neighbors and i have always been in support of a modification to the structure and have hope for a compromise with the project owner to accommodate his desire to modify the property. we also felt it was critical to balance the need against losing green space, which i think we can all say -- buildings change over time, but very rarely do you see buildings eradicated and green space open back up permanently. that was a priority for us. i think we have been left with another opportunity to seek

solutions for the city and ourselves. supervisor chiu: if there are any other members of the public which to comment on this categorical exemption -- this is not general public comment. >> of former speaker here made an interesting comment that 500 other plans were submitted -- is that correct? that were fraudulent blueprints and were passed. and you know, i am thinking is really very important that we do something about this as a city. you've probably heard about richard hgage, from 911 truth. he is calling for a new 9/11

investigation. many times, these buildings, supervisors, at these buildings collapsed on 9/11. he knows exactly how these buildings are structured, the impossibility these buildings could drop by themselves. it has never happened. all of a sudden on 9/11, we had three of them collapsed. did not happen. there were explosives down there all over the place. and it is a fact. the building is so important, and i would hope he would look at this engineer and have him talk to you, because, man, that really hit me. i was like -- i have been shocked. it was that kind of hurts.

it was about this third building that fell that day, that larry silverstein -- these six israelis were arrested on that day. and he did not know anything about it. i refer you -- [bell rings] supervisor chiu: thank you very much. any other members of the public which to speak? ok. let's go to the planning department with a presentation on their grounds that this project be exempt. >> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. thank you for allowing me to speak. i do need to use the overhead projector today. as you have heard from the appellant, there are a number of different issues regarding the categorical exemption.

the first one is built to have an appropriate review of the proposed project. the department did conduct an historic evaluation in 2008. at that time, it was to alter the existing cottage located at the rear of the property. here is the aerial photo of the property. ord street is here. the cottage sits to the rear of the property. due to the age of the building being more than 50 years of age, the department of preservation staff conducted an historic analysis based on research and historic records and concluded the cottage was not an historic resources, nor was the subject

property located in a potential historic district. on september 31, 2008, the department issued and the categorical -- categorical exemption. in 2009, when the project sponsor submitted a new application, he did change his project from altering the existing cottage at the rear to building a brand new building at the front of the property, leading region will leave the -- leaving the cottage intact. the planning department had already determined there was no historic resource on the property. there is no need to go further into any further historic resource evaluation on the property. i understand the appelant takes

issue with the planning department adding a notation in the file. from what i am hearing today, the appellant believes this is in violation of the law. we do have the city attorney here, but it is the department's opinion that it is permissible, despite the fact that the projected change from alteration to new construction, as long as the underlying determination remains unchanged. the department issued -- did not issue a new examination, despite what the appellant is

saying. it is for the conclusion that 146 ord street is not an historic resources or in an historic district. according to historic maps in the department of public records, the cottage of the rear of the property was constructed either shortly before or after the 1906 earthquake. the cottage and underwent a series of the exterior renovations, which included new windows, possibly a new stair entrance. whereas a side building was renovated to victorian style,

the existing cottage contained classic elements. as explained in the evaluation dated september 29, 2008, in order to qualify as an historic resource, the building must not only be shown to be significant to the california register, but it also must retain integrity. with an altered front facades and the inability to meet any of the criteria of the california register, 134 ord street is not an historic resources. there is no information to indicate it has any assisted asian -- has any association with an event. there's nothing to suggest it has had any importance to our local, regional, or national past.

it does not have the characteristics of a type, period, or kind of construction or represents the work of a master. and there is nothing at 134 ord street that possesses archaeological significance. again, the building must be one of these four criteria to be protected under the law. staff made a review and determined that the address is not meet this criteria, and therefore it is not an historical resources. ironman -- i understand that they believe the front garden of the subject property, as well as the other neighboring buildings at the front and back, are an unusual circumstance. it may be the case that's 134

ord street is an older structure, but these two characteristics are simply not enough to call the subject building and historic resource. the development of the cottages at the rear is quite common in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods throughout the city. is typical for owners to build a small cottage at the rear of their property. and therefore, development of cottages at the back is simply not unique or unusual. the third issue the appellant is raising is the determination of the historic district and the proposed project will have a negative impact on historic resources. while the district may agreed with the appellant that there

are historic resources in the neighborhood, the department does not agree that the proposed project will be a negative impact to those resources. there is no substantial credible evidence provided by the appellant to contend that 134 ord street is a contributor to the district or the project will have an adverse impact. 140 ord street is the flat front italianate. it was noted as a well- preserved italianate building of fine details and of former garden. of the proposed project will be 25 feet from the front property

line and will not touch the adjacent historic resource. from an architectural and urban design standpoint, as you can tell from this photograph -- the flat front lacks continuity in architectural style. these are setbacks to being considered a potential historic district. the department believes there

is enough obstruction in these front setbacks -- in offenses, garden structures -- to interrupt that open space to leave one solid foot of green space that could be defined as significant. as for the impact, the fourth issue of the appellant is raising is the public use that he believes will be impacted -- [bell rings] to summarize, the planning department -- supervisor chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions to planning? supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: would be

inappropriate time to ask a question -- supervisor chiu: absolutely. a question to any member of city staff. supervisor wiener: can you speak relating to the change of the category of a category of exemption from one to three and what impact, if any, that has? >> hello. i am the city attorney. this does not violate state law or the city guidelines -- guidelines. it does not define what kind of categorical exemption is issued as long as it becomes final. the project became final. hear the project approval is not yet final because it is under

appeal, and it is appropriate for the department's of appeals -- for the department of appeals to supplement if necessary. he can supplement that record. it is certainly not improper procedurally under the law to have further documents -- to have further documentation and the process. supervisor wiener: would be inappropriate to change the categorical exemption from one category to another? >> from a procedural perspective, as long as it is the undermining -- underlying determination that the product is exempt, it does not change. supervisor wiener: thank you. supervisor chiu: colleagues, any

questions? at this time, let's hear from the real party at interest. >> good afternoon. john is a public health service employee of the federal government. he has never built a structure. i of heard today -- and i have heard it many times -- that my client is a developer. he certainly is not. one important thing that you heard is very misleading. mr. williams would make you believe that during the planning commission hearing, the staff presented a project that was our renovation of our rear building. no. he presented a project that was a new building. the new building was moved 9

feet further back into the locked, same height, same structure. we're talking about documentation for whether an analysis was done. mr. williams might be right. but the documentation did not occur until after the planning commission hearing. but that is not a question to go that is a document. documentation can be done up to the time of the permanent. it has not had a fully-issued building permits. what is important is, did the staff of department analyzed before it's too up to present a new building. did they look at resources on this lot in nearby ones? yes. the fact that they did not read-

stamp a piece of paper before that meeting is irrelevant. it is also irrelevant legally according to the city attorney. now, there is no dispute here even from the appellant that nothing on this lot is an historic resource. only secondarily was it allows with the nearby buildings were accepted? -- were affected? the main argument is based on a book written by a socialite many years ago called the blue boat here today." -- "here today." what they did not mention was in the survey of the junior league,

which is on the overhead, the junior league says, this block as a whole is not architecturally strong. not only did they identify two architectural resources on the slot, but it appears that none of the others are important. they did not tell you that. the appellate went to the planning commission and said, build me a structure as far back into the rear as possible. my client wanted it as far forward as possible. the planning commission put it exactly up the middle. the new structure was placed halfway up for my client wanted and halfway with the neighborhood wanted it. neither party was thrilled, but some people call that could compromise.

they are now using arcane historical preservation rules and clerical errors to undo this. they want to get back the design the proposed, which is a much larger from lot. what do they use to do that? they complain that the open space on the lot is historic. is the only way they can preserve the open and rear yard frontage that they really want p.o. so, -- that they really want. so, what do they want from the planning commission? there is a place for that. there is a place for their real issues of light/shadow views and so on. that is the board of appeals. it will only be held up by

appeal before you today. now, if you hear from the appellant that the front yard is a special place never to be built on, if this sounds familiar, it is because mr. joseph butler used the same arguments in the case of 1269 lombard a few weeks ago. what he argued was the placement of buildings and office spaces around the front yard of 1269 created a formality and an historic feature of an inch deep front yard of the property. here, in his report does it one more time. id talks about the front yard, even though there is nothing historic in its -- this is a front yard with the driveway and parking spaces and concrete --

but he makes that into an historic feature by saying the front yard has an important spatial relationship compared to the lots and buildings are round it. in the 1269 case and the case before you, he says "the spatial relationship of and adjacent buildings on other lots next to and around a proposed project front yard open space is to be preserved." he compared that in both of these cases. "the tool in the neighborhood." -- "the jewel in the neighborhood daughters that argument did not work in the -- in the neighborhood daughters that argument did not work any

-- in the lombard case. all d four open spaces have nothing particularly of beauty in them or anything in common. the sum is greater than each part. again, he has not told you the junior league said of the same front yards and the buildings on them that this role of houses is "not architecturally strong." and when he talks about the public perception, he is really talking about if you see the long and deep side of 140, if we say that the standard wood siding, plane sides of historic

buildings around town, older buildings, are to be preserved, what we are really saying is, hundreds, if not thousands of small additions to the front sides of buildings can never be made. if you block any part of this very generic wood siding that you see on this victorian and you see here adjacent at 140. now, the city attorney has rejected this idea that the revision was too late if it comes after the planning commission hearing. he rejected it here before du. about a month ago. many of you will remember. the same arguments. it was issued to late.

the city attorney advised the same thing p.o. -- advise the same thing. the other question is whether there has been an error. the so-called harmless error rule. this says if there is a small clerical error that does not harm anybody, it does not make a decision on environmental review effective. so, let's ask about the harm. [bell rings] did appellants it denied a right to a board of appeals hearing? no. what does the change of category status mean? there are no consequences. and nobody has lost any rights

to complain about this project. and of course, as you know, the results of your decision today -- [bell rings] supervisor chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions? ok. why don't we hear from members of the public who wish to speak? each member of the public will have up to two minutes. first speaker. >> [unintelligible] supervisor chiu: you can start. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is john mulroney and in the property owner. i am not a developer. i purchased this property in july 2008 to serve as my primary residence with plans to add to the structure of the front of the lots and turn the cottage,

where i now live, into a rental unit. what changed over two years ago is the order in which i have decided to undertake these improvements -- new building first, followed by renovation of the cottage. i have noticed -- the existing small cottage at the rear of the lot has approximately 900 square feet of living space, which due to obstructions is prevented from being used as a grosz -- garage. i parked in the front driveway. prior to the planning commission, i voluntarily made many modifications to my plan. i also supported the but sessions of mediation at the community board.

the changes are incorporated included reducing the heights and the -- it is now 13 feet lower at 130 ord. two, and increased the front setback to provide more front yard in the front lot. the appellants has argued that i should demolish or add-on to the existing building. i chose my approach for several reasons. the cost for free, liberal -- [bell rings] supervisor chiu: thank you. if there are other members of the public to would like to speak, if you could line up in the center aisle. >> thank you. open space is in short supply here in the city.