inspections of these operations, the department of building inspection has been issuing penalties for work without a permit because they are bound by law to do so. so, this ordinance makes clear that d.b.i. penalties will be waived for those who register with the office of cannabis and paid fees, directs d.b.i. to reimburse them. the possibilities of receiving thousands in penalties is not in the spirit of the registration process or the intent to move them towards compliance and serve as a disincentive for cannabis operators to work with the city. we must continue to build trust with the cannabis community to ensure the efficacy of article 16 and the ordinance is meant to do just that. the rest i submit. >> supervisor tang: today i just have one memorial for aniam

pillpal, his father passed away at the age of 82, december 22nd. he was born in poland, then vienna, and escaped for england. remained there to 1947 until he emigrated to america and settled to san francisco with his parents. owned and operated crest pharmacy and then sir pharmacy over 30 years. upon retirements, volunteered for mental health program, drug chart reviews and worked as a fill-in pharmacist. he was a long time member and former officer of congregation israel, past president of the pharmaceutical society of san francisco and has been involved in many, many other organizations. his actions and outlook on life were shaped by the extreme circumstances in europe early on. he was very honest in business. developed and maintained friends and contributed quietly to jewish and nonjewish causes here and elsewhere that he believed in.

i want to send condolences to david pillpal, his mother heady, and hope that his family can have some peace during this difficult time. so, i would like to request we adjourn our meeting in his honor. >> and if i could be listed on that, too. >> thank you, supervisors. madam president, just a moment before 3:00 p.m. 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