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 -- adjacent to the right -- 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.