supervisor yee, thank you. we'll return to you, madam president after the 3:00 p.m. special orders. >> president breen: so i will actually since it's not 3:00 p.m., i'll finish my roll call for introductions and then go to the 3:00 p.m. special order. [please stand b

without trying to address this problem in a different way, we're risking lives, health and safety of our residents and losing opportunities to help those who are grappling with

drug abuse. we're risking the opportunity to get them access to other services that we provide. we simply can't afford to stand idly by and thanks to the efforts of community members, we've moved forward in a healthy way we have existing providers and funders who are willing to help us implement this sites and what i was hoping from this memo is a deeper analysis of how we can do the right thing within the confines of the law. the city may need to take steps against criminal prosecution and other risks identified in this memorand memorandum. and i'm asking the city attorney gauge the risk of prosecution and other things identified in

the best and most responsible result. so this conversation will continue. the other time i have today, colleagues, is an in memoriam for the daughter of reverend arnold townsend, his only doubter, rachel townsend. rachel was a committed member of the african-american community here in san francisco and was a behind-the-scenes champion in leading a festival every single year. despite how challenging it was to organize this event, rachel continues to push herself and push community members to show up every sippingle ye-- single year. she was always there for the community and she was also always there to support and help her dad. she was really the light of

reverend townsend's life. it's sad that we lost her. she was only 38 years old. and rachel was so many things to so many people and an important part of our community, as i said. and because she was so young, there were no arrangements or any life insurance that could help to support her and pay for her funeral. so if anybody wants to make a contribution to donate, go to gofundme rachel townsend's funeral fund. the rest i submit. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, madam president. and i will give it right back to you. >> president breed: all right. here we good. madam clerk, we're going to call our first appeal. i think it's item 18-21.

>> clerk: comprise public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act, issued as an exemption by the planning department for the project at 2417 green street, to make alterations to an existing 4-story over basement single-family resident with one vehicle parking space. excavate two parking spaces and facade and lower the existing building. 19 the determination that the green street project is exempt from environmental review. 20 will reverse that determination. and 21 is the motion to direct appropriation of findings. >> president breed: thank you, madam clerk.

we have before us of a categorical exemption for this project at 2417 green street in district 2. for this hearing, we will be considering the adequacy, accuracy, sufficiency of the planning department's determination that the proposed project at 2417 green street is categorically exempt from review under ceqa. without objection, we will proceed as follows. 10 minutes for presentation by the appellant or representative. up to 2 minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the planning department. up to 10 minutes for presentation by the project sponsor or the project representative. up to 2 minutes per speaker in opposition of the appeal. and, finally, up to 3 minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or appellant representative. colleagues, if there is no objection to proceeding in this

way, we'll open up this hearing. supervisor farrell? >> supervisor farrell: before we get into the appeal presentations, i want to flag for everybody that we're hearing the ceqa appeal while there are three d.r.s pending. it's unusual and i don't think i've seen it. we're here because it was approved by the notices pending. >> president breed: seeing no other names on the roster, we'll start with the 10-minute presentation by the appellant or appellant representative. >> thank you, ma'am. i'm richard drury, representing phillip kauffman, owner of the directly adjacent property 2421 green street. i'd like to use the overheads here, so i -- thank you. this appeal concerns a proposal

to expand the property of 2417 green street from the existing 4,100 square foot residence to a 6,000 square foot residence on a 2,500 square foot lot. this will be double 2.5 area ratio. this will not create an additional housing unit. it will take one large house and create a tremendously large house. the planning department issued a categorical exemption. the primary finding is that the project would not affect the historical resource, but the categorical exemption ignores the property of 2421 green street, which is immediately adjacent to the subject property and uphill. that house is perhaps one of the

most significant historical residential properties in the entire city of san francisco, possibly one of the most historically significant properties in the country. it was built in 1893 by earnest coxhead, who was the fore father that used the shingles that came to be known as arts and crafts style. perhaps realizing that the planning department made an oversight, mr. christopher durkin, has racked up four separate notices of violation. he's been racing to build the property as quickly as possible, even in the face of inadequate permits. the notices of violation were issued for work beyond the scope of the permit. he was ordered to stop work.

on one day, he removed the chimney from the roof, creating a giant, gaping hole. he proceeded on the very next day to remove a second chimney and create a second gaping hole in the roof that led to a third notice of violation. he pleaded then to tear out the foundation of the property. again, receiving a fourth notice of violation for work beyond the scope of the permit. this is clearly a scoff law developer that is willing to pay trivial penalties to destroy historical property. this past sunday, "the san francisco chronicle" ran an article about developers tearing down and harming historically significant properties, which is what is happening in this case.

it should stop. it should stop here. it should stop now. what we're asking for is simply for the developer to comply with the law. california environmental quality act says, if a project may adversely affect an historical resource, it's in violation of ceqa. planning didn't realize that this house was directly adjacent. this is an article from the new fillmore newspaper. it shows -- this is phillip kauffman's house. this is the subject property at 2417 green. the exemption only looks at 2417 green and concludes that it is not historically significant.

we submit it's not, but this house certainly is. this house is one of two homes featured in noted architectural treaties where earnest coxhead himself lived with his family. raised his children. and it is one of the most architecturally significant homes in the city. now the planning department at this point recognizes -- they admit it's a "category a1 historic resource." that's the highest possible category of historic value. yet the planning department still contends that the exemption should stand because they claim this project won't adversely affect the resource. we have submitted a lawyer from architect carol carp, who has opined that this project will, in fact, adversely affect the

historic nature of the property. and i would like to give you a -- show some pictures of the story poles that have recently erected on the property. this project will expand the property back four stories tall, almost 20 feet, 17 feet, into the backyard. you can see that that expansion will essentially block major views from the rear of the house, blocking, by our count, 24 windows. these windows look out on expansive views of russian hill. here's another image showing that's poles and how the expansion would block the windows. here's a view from inside the home, showing how the expansion would block those views. clearly this would adversely affect the historic nature of

the house, access to light, air and views. and we submit, residential neighbors in san francisco are not entitled to views, but ceqa expressly states that aesthetic impact to historic resources may not be exemption from ceqa. the planning department ignored that section entirely in that report. furthermore, we're submitting today. you will hear from dr. larry carp. he has submitted that this proposed project will undermine the foundation, the very foundations, of the coxhead house. this will excavate 15 feet deep, undermining the tall, brick

foundations built in 1893, which survived the 1906 earthquake, undermining the foundations of the coxhead house. we also have submitted with our letters, an opinion from a geologist that concluded that it may cause flooding in the basement of the coxhead house. clearly all of these factors will affect the nature of that house and the project may not be exempted from ceqa review. secondly, the project is clearly on the city's map of potentially contaminated sites. the city's map shows it's within three locations of leaky underground storage tanks. this project will require 408 cubic yards of soil excavation.

again, under ceqa, it may not be exempted if it's on a potentially contaminated site. finally, the third reason that it should not be exempted from ceqa is the project is inconsistent with guidelines that involve volume and mapping consistent with neighboring properties. this is nearly double. and it requires preservation of open space, terracing to protect views, and importantly, respect for historic resources. again, the staff says, those are aesthetic and don't apply in san francisco. however, under 21099, subsection d, ceqa says that provision does not apply to historic resources.

and we keep coming back to the fact that this house is such an historic resource. we're asking that the board require an environmental impact report that will not prevent the developer from building the project -- we understand that the developer has the right to build, remodel, construct, to improve the property, but he must comply with the law. the e.i.r. will require the developer to analyze these resources and minimize impacts and minimize impacts to the extent feasible. he can then build the project, but within and consistent with the guidelines i would be happy to take any questions. >> president breed: thank you. seeing no names on the roster, i do have a question, before we move on to the planning department around the contaminated soil issue. can you explain that based on the presentation? when that information was

provided to me, i was surprised that there was still the opportunity to -- that this project was still exempt under ceqa, when there's a possibility that there's a contaminated site. can you verify that, please? >> good afternoon, president breed. i'm lisa gibson, environmental review officer for the city. i can answer that question and refer it to staff for further information if you would like. the project site is on a list of sites that are ones where there have been prior contamination -- excuse me, the project site would involve excavation of 50 cubic yards or more and subject to review by department of public health, but they're able to waive the requirements of their review if they determine that a site has been in residential use in perpetuity.

they made that case and there was a waiver of requirements. we have no concerns about the site's prior housing a and find there is no potential for any environmental issues related to hazardous materials contamination. >> president breed: we'll get into that a little more in the present asi presentation but i find that odd. seeing no other names on the roster, we'll open it up to public comment, to members of the public who are here to support this particular appeal. welcome, judge beya, to the chamber. >> it's wonderful to be back in city hall where i spent so many years. my wife and i live at 2727 pierce, which is perhaps the

same historical -- has the same historical character. it was built in 1866, about 30 years before the coxhead house was built. and our property line is touching on 2417. so if i go out my back door, i see 2417. i see the flags. and i would like, principally, to address my remarks in support of the appeal to the question of the open space guidelines for -- for the area. our backyard is right next to where the poles and the flags are. so we will be very conscious of the fact that an area of the open space will be lost by this building. this is of great concern to us

because it closes us in when we go out in the backyard. we also sympathize with mr. kauffman with respect to the foundation and the possibility of flooding because we had a similar situation and brought the same type of appeal here to the board of supervisors some years ago and were successful. so thank you for very much listening to me. >> president breed: thank you. and thank you for being here today. next speaker? and if there are any other members of the public that would like to provide comment, please come forward. and this is specifically for those here to support the appeal. there will be an opportunity for those who oppose the appeal later on in the meeting. >> hello, board of supervisors. i'm phillip kauffman. my house is in danger. you can read all the reports by

lawrence carp, the architects and so forth. i've lived in this house for almost 30 years. i make films. many of my films are shot in san francisco, including "the right stuff," hemingway, and "invasion of the body snatchers." it's not easy, as you all know, convincing hollywood to bring films up here to be shot. and in bringing films up here, i've been able to break millions upon millions of dollars into this area, convincing hollywood that we have a great talent base and unions and so forth.

when my wife, rose, became ill, we moved production into the house. actors have all over the world have visited. clive owen, and many actors, we've rehearsed films there. and we intend to make more films in this area and i just want to say one last thing. that when i made a film years ago called "invasion of the body snatchers," the challenge was to show that the best city in the world could resist the invasion by uncaring outsiders determined to take away humanity and compassion. >> president breed: thank you. thank you for your comments.

next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm lawrence carp. i'm a geo technical engineer that works in san francisco -- >> president breed: we'll pause your time. if you could speak into the microphone, please. >> i'm lawrence carp. i've been working as a geo technical engineer for 60 years or so. planning found a way to waive the contaminated soil issue, but they can't waive the protection act. i have a map here. it doesn't seem to be working. that oblong shape that you see.

that's been part of the four or five districts, mostly around telegraph hill, but this one has ground conditions that are very poor. this house, one of the most important historical buildings in san francisco, is in this red circle. there are a series of requirements for geo technical reports, for foundation designs, and registrations to protect adjoining neighbors to a project. once the city or planning granted the determination, the

planners signed the plans approved without even looking at them. when you look at the plans, the developer has foundations anchored to the coxhead house and you will see those in the report and a lot of other things. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. next speaker, please? >> hello, honorable supervisors, almost a year ago, mr. gerkin revealed his plans. letters poured in to planning voicing our opposition. a few days ago, story poles were put up and they confirmed our deepest fears. it shows that his plans will block the light, air and views

of 24 windows, prominent in the coxhead's design. it's a san francisco treasure and national treasure the house is featured in many architectural books and deemed eligible for entry into the national register. the massive excavation threatens to destabilize the foundation. this will cause serious, ir repairable damage to the historic integrity of 2424 green. it's on the site for contaminated soil. as in other neighborhoods, as you will hear, mr. gerkin goods has been disdainful of the neighbors.

the neighborhood has asked him to be neighborly, keep the neighborhood beautiful and build inside the envelope. he was uninterested. he began to aggressively piecemeal the project through serial permitting, as he violations. he's a scoff law. we have reason to believe that it's being built on spec. he's left gaping holes in the roof, to lead it a teardown situation. thank you very much. >> president breed: thank you. next speaker, please? >> president breed and members of the board, my name is deborah holly. i'm a planning consultant representing susan biryd and

mike lambert, who has lived next door for 20 years. it is the white house next to the project site. i'm here on behalf -- on their behalf in support of their neighbor's efforts to make sure that the project complies with ceqa and does not endanger his historic resident. i want to emphasize two key background issues. first, i want to point out the delicate historic context in which the project has been proposed. the lambert-byrd house is an architectural treasure itself. because it's downvoep of the site, it's not in danger of being destabilized, as is mr. kauffman's house, but i cannot emphasize enough how

tragic it would be if the project harmed mr. kauffman's home. the dishonest behavior is alarming. theres been four stop work orders already even before the project really has received the permits to begin. we're grateful that neighbors have observed and reported illegal activity and dbi and planning have responded to our complaints before even more of the house was demolished. as tragically has been known to happen. again, i urge the board to do whatever is in their power to protect mr. kauffman's home and protect my clients'. >> president breed: thank you. next speaker, please?

>> i'm barbara hefernon. >> president breed: please speak directly at the microphone. >> i have lived in the neighborhood for 30 years. i will read an excerpt from a letter. i will read a section of the letter that they did send to the planning board. "when we as a neighborhood group gathered to meet the architect and developer, we spoke in one voice and raised our specific request. stay within the footprint of the original home. we went on to tell our own stories about how we did improvements to our own homes. as a group of neighbors, we communicate with each other and support each other.

we've made a lot of improvements, but we've always stayed in contact with our neighbors in order to let them know what is going on and how they respond to that. we're not anti-remodel. we're against careless, dangerous, unsightly development. we raised our specific concerns that the open space be respected and that the historic cox december head home not be put in jeopardy by excessive excavation." thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> i'm dan hefernon. i just want to make a strong point that most of us neighbors have lived on that block, many of them here, for 20 to 30 years. and we have always worked

together and abided by all the rules. we built 100 extra square feet and it took us 18 months through the planning board to do everything right and we have the biggest lot on the block. and we're very proud of the fact that the rules have been followed by everybody and we've been happy to do it. i urge the board to be stronger, if you like, about what they do if people are in violation. this developer proceeds as if it's a carpool violation and you afford it, pay it off, move on. that cannot be the case. we have to stop this from going on in our city. that's all i want to say. i want to mention that our uphill neighbor couldn't be here as well. they sent their son, who is on an aircraft carrier in the sea of japan, but here in his offtime and he has a very big

button, so i appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> president breed: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please? >> supervisors, good afternoon. i'm jessica mcgregor. i live across the street from the proposed project and from mr. kauffman's home. as you know, san francisco is suffering from an epidemic of work beyond the scope of permits, work without permits, serial permits to avoid ceqa. i believe the most recent example was 1841 chestnut and on lombard street. and the planning department was looking at 214 states. the board of appeals addressed a project of a piecemealing case. the problem was a front page story in "the chronicle."

one of the reasons that i believe is happening is there is no penalty for engaging in serial permitting and piecemealing. and only in substantial fines for the work beyond the scope of permits. in this circumstance, we have work exceeding the scope of permits, serial permitting and piecemealing. the only way to prevent the problems and preserve this residence, mr. kauffman's home, this beautiful home, is to stop them and to penalize them. you cannot enact stricter penalties today, but you can find a finding that this project has been illegally piecemealed and find that the ceqa exemption was issued in error and fold all the work into the review and

suspend the permit. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon. i'm wayne garcia. i'm here as friend of the kauffman family, small business owner, 30-year resident of san francisco. and i think this issue is more than just about this house, though this home is very important, clearly. i'm not happy development, but where i live in portera hills, this is going on all the time. two large homes being built, blocking views, changing neighborhoods. and so much has been said here today, it's so much about what kind of city do we want this to be. and we want this development and violation to continue. thank you for hearing me. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please?

>> hello. i'm louise beya and i live at 2727 pierce street. as my husband said, we're adjacent in the backyard. i will not repeat anything that was said before, but i will say that i agree with everything. and i just would hope that the board of supervisors would give the degree of scrutiny appropriate to this project. the coxhead house may not be a designated landmark, but in our neighborhood, we interest it a very important historic resource and to us it is a landmark. so that's it. thank you for your efforts. >> president breed: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm paul wermer.

i visited all three houses. i think a big stated question is what is the purpose of historic preservation and one can argue a lot of things about it that i don't want to get into. however, one of the important things about historic properties is, needs to understand to what extent their sighting, the way they've been designed for the site, how it interacts with the surrounding, is a big part of its character and maybe a significant contributor to the story it tells about the architectural philosophy and what drove some of the brilliant architects of the past to build what they built. in this case, don't think of it as views from the inside, if you

want to say, it's not protected for the owner, it's the views of the coxhead house from the outside that provide tremendous clues to setting use of sun, the large, historic open space in that block. open space is incredibly important for a number of reasons. it's a big part of the neighborhood character. as you set precedence, oh, we can push as much into the rear yard as we want, subject to code limitation, you are saying that the neighborhood character is no longer important. ceqa is there so you fully understand the factors that might impact your decision. and to give a categorical exemption when up have an important, historically significant house with significant siting next door, means that you don't have the information that you need to

make an informed decision. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> thank you for letting me speak here today. i'm susanna robbins, director of the film congratulations commission. i wanted to comment on the contribution that phillip kauffman makes to the city. in addition to the house being a treasure, he is as well. he's chosen to make his films here and use san francisco to be the backdrop for his creations and he creates hundreds of local jobs and millions of spending. in 2011, he made the film "hemingway" that employed 875 local hires and spent more than $7.5 million locally. he has another project in development that he would like to make here, but has stated to our office if the construction goes on continuing the way it

is, that it will not have a creative flow. it would cause a loss of jobs to our city as well as local spending, as well as another wonderful phillip kauffman film being created here. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon. i'm christine pelosi. i'm here today as the daughter-in-law of phil kauffman and mother of this squirmy 8-year-old that spends a fair amount of time at the kauffman home. the department of public health, which is the first to issue flu shot warnings for seniors and small children, has apparently decided to exempt from review 400 cubic feet of potentially

hazardous soil. why my 8-year-old daughter and 80-year-old father-in-law should be subject to an arbitrary decision like that with their health at stake is something i find problematic. if in fact, you should build next door to an historic home with a brick foundation and risk destroying the house, have a full investigation. if, in fact, you should risk the health of my father-in-law and my daughter, in amounts expodentially higher than the hazardous soil excavation map, have a full investigation. if the board of supervisors laws don't mean what they say out in the real world and people are able to build no matter what, and the planning department notices and building inspection notic

notices, what we have is not only a danger to the house, but the character of our city. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. [applause] >> paul pipoldi, brick and mortar small business owner. it seems to me that las vegas is a city that has no regard for its history. it seems to be about whoever has the most money at that time and how they will shape that city architecturally. if we -- that's not san francisco. san francisco has one of the richest histories of anyone in the world. to pay little fines along the way, basically spitting in the face of our city government, wore on a slippery slope. especially for someone who has

lived in a neighborhood for decades and brought so much to the city, that person deserves some protection from the city, from someone who is just there to make a profit. so i challenge the board of supervisors to get a grip on this trend in the city and start by doing the right thing in this situation. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. next speaker, please? >> my name is barbara meacham. i have lived for 31 years directly across the street from the subject property and i would just like to express my support for all of my neighbors who have spoken and for phil, who has been a fantastic neighbor for all those years. and i think that will be it for now. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please?

>> thank you. my name is margaret jacobson. i reside at 2761 scott street and agree with all the previous speakers. i would like to point out that this lack of review by the planning department and quick-paced approval of the so-called permits is a blatant insult to the residents that followed proper proceeder. my husband and i and four sons have lived there for 15 years we looked to make minor renovations to a house that was not physically safe or earthquake proof. we were denied because the house was deemed historic. when asked why, we were told it's because herb cane resided in the house for one year when he was between divorces in the

1960s. our front porch collapsed and our garage flooded. now we're engaged in a project done under duress and in emergency. i urge the planning department and the board of supervisors to scrutinize this project the way that our properly permitted project was scrutinized over the past five years that it took to get the permits to make the renovations necessary so it does not collapse. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. >> get in the ring, board of supervisors. start throwing some punches for what you believe in. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. sfgtv? >> yes. i'm ace. i'm on the case and soon you will see my emails and all of th

th that ace on the case. they say, you don't belong there unless you act the right way. i'm here to support the people city and county and my opinion needs to be reviewed. it's not just all y'all that don't do nothing. let me show you a good example. is it on there? environment. they're going to spend $18 million and we don't have anything. environment of the city by the bay. the family. my name is ace and i'm on the case. and i want everybody from the mayor, acting mayor, and everybody to know. i've been here some 25, 30 years. i got kids that got kids and my kids' kids have kids. i'm a papa. i get tired of coming down here to city hall, which i call silly hall, to be treated like i'm a peon. i'm beyond a peon.

and i'm making an announcement, london, i may run for district 5 in 2020. hold up. >> president breed: mr. washington, there is no campaigning in the chamber. >> i support what all y'all doing. don't mess with me, sister. i have 35 seconds. if i'm doing wrong, i will apologize, but no one apologizes to ace. i'm on the case. in your face. and right now i'm in this place, where they didn't want me. and i'm representing -- i'm the new sheriff in town. let me say one thing, to all the departments. you will have to be held accountability to everyone -- >> president breed: this item is about 2417 green street. >> my name is ace and i'm on this case. if you need me anywhere all over the city, give me a call. [applause] >> president breed: next

speaker, please. >> good afternoon, joe kelly. >> president breed: are there any other members on behalf of the appellant? if so, come to the right-hand side of the chamber near the windows. please proceed, sir. >> i came on another issue, but a general observation, want to suggest that i have no idea why this body is dealing with this issue. there's a lot bigger issues. it's a regulation that's dictating, but i encourage you not to spend valuable time on such an individual's issue. it's beyond belief, but you do what you will do. >> president breed: thank you for your comments.

are there any other members of the public that would like to speak in favor of the appeal? seeing none, public comment is closed. we'll have an up to 10-minute presentation from the planning department. >> good afternoon, president breed and members of the board. i'm gina polling and lisa gibson and christopher may, pauley kirby, and bill strahan from dbi. i'm going to address the ceqa issue. i will speak mainly about ceqa piecemeali

piecemealing. the appellant claims that it was piecemealed. it is prohibited under state ceqa statute. it covers the whole of the action, excavation and three-story rear addition. it's not unusual for one project under ceqa to be subject to multiple building permits and it's covering on work on the site that was permitted. the issuance of the building permit is not relevant to this appeal and, therefore, the project was not piecemealed. the second contention is that it may result insignificant impact on the coxhead house up hill and to the west at 2421 green street. the planning department reviewed the subject property and determined it's not individually eligible for listing on a

register. it is also not within the district, thus, there is no historic resources are conducted or necessary. the appellant claims that the rear expansion would impair historic resources blocking windows andrews and access to light and air. these issues, midblock open space and access to light and air, are design issues, which are probably addressed during the planning department's review for compliance with the planning code and consistency with applicable guidelines. no additional analysis of these issues is required for purposes of ceqa. project setting is narrow lots and the appellant has provided no substantial evidence that

it's located within a california eligible district that would warrant more review. the third issue is about article 22a of the health code. the project site is in the zone where hazardous materials may be present in the soil or groundwater due to previous uses. over, the appellant is incorrect saying that there must be a site excavation site. the ordinance states that a single-family model may be granted a waiver. the health department reviewed the project and issued a waiver to submit a site renovation plan. that means that the experts at the department of public health

believe there is no sub surface soil or groundwater that would be a threat to health. so it complies with ceqa and the project is appropriately exempt from environmental review. i urge you to uphold the exemption and deny the appeal. this concludes my presentation on ceqa. and chris may will speak for a few minutes about permitting. >> good afternoon, president breed, members of the board. i would like to give a brief overview of permitting and enforcement. on april 28, 2017, the sponsor filed a building permit for excavation, ex-papgs of the garage, and full foundation

replacement. lowering of the building by 2 feet and interior remodel throughout the building. this is the project's scope that the environmental planning staff issued a categorical exemption for. the sponsor obtained an over the count counter approval. the scope of that permit included the partial deteriorated basement wall with new retaining walls in the rear yard. it was separated out from the rear as described in the building permit. dbi received a come play in the that they were conducting work by constructing a horizontal submission the scope warranted review and suspended the permit the following day. they reviewed the plans and determined that while the expansion of the garage level

was complaint and in determination with ceqa, one of the retaining walls, aligned with the foundation of the proposed addition, subject to the neighborhood notification that had not occurred the project sponsor submitted a revised review of the suspended foundation permit. planning department staff reviewed the plans with the zoning administrator that determined that it could approve the permit if the retowning wall was removed. on october 10, the sponsor submitted a revised wall and planning approved the plans and the permit was issued by dbi a few weeks later. the planning department issued neighborhood investigation for the horizontal rear expansion.

between november 28 and 30, three requests for review were filed. the d.r. hearing will be heard on february 8, 2018. there's been some questions as to whether the manner with which the project sponsor went about obtaining their building permits and if it was serial permitting. it is typically alleged to be piecemeal to circumvent fees. it allows different scopes of work to proceed in order to save time and/or costs. for example it, would not be uncommon for a project sponsor to obtain a separate building permit to replace windows or

remodel a bathroom and apply for a second permit for an addition. in this case, a permit was excavation work was obtained. and another permit for horizontal rear addition to expand the building. the department in consultation with the zoning administrator determined that the expansion permit was not contingent of the permit for proposed rear addition and thinks that it is sequencial and not serial permitting. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> president breed, if i may? in our remaining time, i would like to summarize a few, key

points. i would like to emphasize that we have two buckets of concerns that have been raised at the appeal. there's the ceqa bucket of concerns. and those are matters that we've responded to in our appeal response. the other matters are non-ceqa-related. the sponsors compliance with the terms of the permits and penalties. those are matters of concerns that are raised today and policy recommendations by planning as well as the board for legislation to address some of the problems with inadequate penalties. so we're -- our focus today is on the ceqa matters and it's not piecemeali piecemealing, which is the focus today and the planning department adequately reviewed

and issued an exemption prior to permits by planning and inspection. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. seeing no names on the roster. i think i have a question about my concern because this has come up in previous appeals that have come before this board. where projects have violated the law. they've been allowed to move forward and there are penalties associated with those violations and i think i'm trying to understand how it's possible -- there's been numerous violations with this project and then issued a requirement to pay certain penalties, and maybe not by the planning department, but based on other challenges, and then we're still moving this project forward and there are -- you know, this seems to be a