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 pattern with a lot of people who purchase homes in the city, violate the law, pay the penalties and still able to move forward with their projects, which sometimes, unfortunately, changes the character of a community. so i'm trying to understand how that continues to happen in these particular cases. >> supervisor breed, the planning department shares those concerns. and that's why we've asked for legislation that will strengthen and enhance the administrative penalties, provisions of the planning code, that are in sections 176. and as far as allowing a project

to proceed, the remedies that have been issues are ones that have suspended all work on the project. this project sponsor is not being allowed to proceed. work was done out of scope and there's work the subject of a discretionary review hearing pending before the planning commission. what is proceeding is this hearing on the adequacy of the ceqa determination. unless this body finds that the planning department improperly i issued that exemption, it could would not be allowed to go on. we're hope to work with this body to develop legislation to remedy concerns. >> president breed: and i think that -- i'm still not satisfied with the arguments of the waiver around the issues of

contamination in the soil. i'm not comfortable with the fact that you can and can't waive it, but then there's no charity as to what it would do on contaminated soil. i don't need you to answer that at this time. i will move on with the presentation, and then we can get into more detail about questions, but i'm still not satisfied with the argument as it relates to that. at this time, i will ask the project sponsor or representative to come forward. you have up to 10 minutes for presentation. >> thank you, president breed. members of the board. i'm tom toney on behalf of the

project sponsor. the architect is here as well. we're available to answer any questions you may have. staff presentation and written responses have addressed each of the arguments in this appeal. the appeal concerns the ceqa document at issue in this project. while we understand and appreciate the character of the home, there is simply no violation of ceqa in this case. ceqa is very clear concerning historic resources. the project may cause significant impact when the project "demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner the physical characteristics of an historical resource that conveys historical

significance." can we show the overhead? this shows the two properties. the proposed project does not expand the property's facade. it will not alter or effect the appellant's home in any way on the front facade. this image shows the worst-case shadow impacts of the proposed rear addition. as you can see, it's set back almost 4 feet. doesn't touch the home. it's visible from the home, but views from the home as have been established are not characteristics of the home that convey historical significance. the integrity as explained is not affected by this project.

the appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary. a preservation consultant submitted a letter yesterday advocating for additional review, but that letter, while they discussed the historic character of the home, do not identify any impacts under ceqa to the home. the appellant in the letter discussed the possibility of the properties being included in the historic district, but planning has studied this previously and concluded that the property should not be included in the district. we're also aware of the recent publicity and public concern about the demolition of historic resources and building permit violations. we want to assure the board that that's not the case here. we have taken every measure to

proceed with care and in accordance with all codes and regulations. the villainization of mr. durkin that has occurred here today is inappropriate and inaccurate. he's here and he's willing to answer each and every question the board may have about project construction. with respect to the recent complaint filed consideration the foundation work, mr. durkin, who is a licensed civil engineer, managed the work himself. two chimneys were removed and they were unenforced, unbraced. they could have fallen and caused damage. they were removed to avoid damage. the subject property and the chimneys are not historic resources. no historic resources have been

or will be compromised by mr. durkin's work. from the beginning of the project, we've taken every step possible to proceed with care and ensure this project was sensitive to the neighborhood. before submitting applications, we met with planning staff and had a formal project review meeting. at these meetings, we identified the relevant historic issues and other issues particular to this property and we designed the project to be sensitive to those issues. mr. durkin held two neighborhood meetings. the second meeting so that additional neighbors could attend and address neighbors' concerns. neighbors will have an additional opportunity to discuss the project at the planning commission's discretionary review hearing. finally, this project has not been "piecemealed." planning studied the entirety of

the project in categorical exemption. the issuance of the permit was authorized because environmental review had been completed. there may be a misunderstanding about the nature of a categorical exemption. the issuance of that exemption does not mean that no environmental review occurred. as you know, the document is significant. and significant review occurs before that document can be issued or approved. appellants, again, have provided no substantial evidence to show any environmental impacts or to show that the exemption was improper or to show that there's been any procedural violations. to the contrary, more than substantial evidence supports the planning department's approval of exemption and this board's upholding of that approval. for all of these reasons, we urge the board to deny this appeal. we're available for any

questions you may have. thank you. >> president breed: thank you very much. all right. we'll open it up to public comment for members of the public that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal. if you would like to speak in opposition to the appeal, please come forward. >> hello, mayor breed, and board of supervisors. i'm ward epstein. i've known chris durkin for 10 years. he has a young family, two kids. he would like to be the neighborhood to the downhill and uphill and have a good, neighborly relationship. for some reason, they don't want him to raise his family there the way they did theirs. he's trying to work quickly to mitigate the noise and the disturbance to everybody. all of his work has been

approved by the planning department, architects, engineers, general contractors. everything's done correctly. some of his neighbors feel like they own the entire block and they own his home and he's merely a custodian of his own home. he's trying to mitigate the possibility of earthquake damage to his own home. almost every building in this city has been required -- if it's multifamily, to have their brick foundations replaced. some of his neighbors have used political influence. he's trying to work with everybody. he really is. it's funny how there's working done on every block in pacific heights, let alone the rest of the city, but somehow chris shouldn't be able to do the work on his own home. he's being singled out by bitter and vindictive neighbors. if they got to know him, they would find that he has a lovely

family and they just want to be part of the neighborhood. i ask that you find in favor of mr. durkin and allow him to build his forever home. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. any other members of the public that would like to speak in open anythin -- 0 up opposition to the appeal? seeing none, we'll have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> i would like to address some of the comments that have been made. first off, ceqa says expressly at 20084-e if a project may not be exempt ed if it adversely affects an historical resource. this is clearly the immediate

surroundings of an appropriate resour resource, and it will change the setting, feeling or association. we've gone chapter and verse about how drastic an effect this project will have on the historic house. the staff simply missed that. second, staff points to 21099 saying that aesthetic concerns don't matter under ceqa, but ignore subsection d, as in david, of that statute, that says it does not apply to historic resources. once again, we come back to the historic nature of this property. third, may i project this again? the city cannot get around the fact that this property is on the city's map of contaminated

sites. our expert has concluded that there is contaminated soil from leaky underground sewage tanks. staff says, it's been used for residential purposes. true. but it does not negate the fact that there is contamination in the soil and should be cleaned up. also, the approval from the city says that a site mitigation plan should be required for the facility. staff has today said they will not require a site mitigation plan. that's stunning. that means that the categorical exemption is false. it's false information to the public. the reason for that, they only have one rubber stamp for approvals and disapprovals that's proposterous. they cannot get a rubber stamp that said no? the -- finally, i'd like to close with mr. durkin's

statement about the ceqa review. that's exhibit i to our attachment. this is an appeal that mr mr. durkin himself filed at 1026 clayton. in this appeal, mr. durkin himself and his law firm said, a project should not be exempted from ceqa review because it may affect a historical resources. in that case, the neighbor wanted to put a roof deck on a garage and mr. durkin said it would affect the historic resource. in that case, no property had been listed as historic, unlike in this case, where we're talking about a category a1 resource that will be adversely affected. what applies with mr. durkin's neighbors should apply to mr. kauffman. thank you.

>> president breed: thank you. that brings us to the end of our hearing. this hearing has been held and is now closed. this matter is in the hands of the board of supervisors. supervisor farrell? >> supervisor farrell: thank you, president breed. i have thoughts on this, but i will defer to colleagues if you have any further questions. >> president breed: before i call on supervisor farrell, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: relative to the last hearing we had where we were all deeply troubled by the demolition of a property at 841 chestnut street, which was an historic resource, the sentiment that this board expressed to the department of city planning, as well as to the zoning administrator and the department of building inspection, is that when you

have important historic resources, you err on the side of the resource. in so far as categorical exemption, means there could be no impact. we don't even have to look at it because there can be no impact, in this case, to an historic resource. as counsel said, it's not just the building. it's the resource next to the building that may be effected. there is evidence in the record. the evidence in the record is very clear. we can quibble as to if it's factually correct, but there's evidence in the record that supports the appeal. this is not an e.i.r. it's a categorical exemption.

i just have to say with all due respect to counsel for the appellant, i looked up chris durkin, unless there are three chris durkins, i came up with the same 1026 clayton appeal, and also 1055 asbury. to the speaker that said it's the dream home. no. it's a developer. that's fine. people can be developers, but you can't pretend that this is your dream home when it's one of a number of projects. that has to do with voracity. i'm happy to defer to the district supervisor in this case, but i hope it's a learning moment for the department. it's not categorically exempt if it has an effect on the a-1 historic resource.

end of story. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor farrell? >> supervisor farrell: thank you. i'm going on my eighth year here at the board of supervisors, i've never seen reason to uphold a ceqa appeal dispute in my district. i think this may be the first one. where we are, there's a lot of questions about planning and building inspection and drs. just to let people know. on may 16, a cat x was issued for the project. then on may 18, two days later, dbi issued a permit for the foundation replacement and that was without planning department approval. it wasn't until a complaint was filed, that dbi found the permit

approved building a new foundation, but required a 311 notice that had not been sent out. to me, it's a sign, not a ceqa issue, but a project sponsor not operating in good faith. they're communicating with the planner, but moving part of the project forward without proper approval. then planning approved with some reservations. my office has been trying to get an answer as to why that happened. we haven't gotten a real answer. october 10, a 311 notice is sent out and three drs were filed. some of them spoke in support of the appeal here, but it's usually done well in advance any ceqa that comes before us. it allowed the excavation work to begin b