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 before it was complete. ceqa appeal had to be filed, which was filed on november 22. you would think when a ceqa appeal is filed, anything permitted would stop, but it wasn't the case here. work continued on this site. and to me, it's a pattern of bad behavior here. it wasn't until december 21. y'all recall what was going on over the holidays and certainly

mr. the holidays after nearly two weeks of my office issuing a stop work order was issued. i find this shocking. the sponsor demolished chimneys without a permit, which has left the home damage and easier to seek demolition approval. i've voiced many frustrations with planning not making common sense decisions with their reviewal to make common sense changes and landmarking neighborhood without letting the supervisors to know. in this case, they allowed one part of the project to move forward with the rest under review. it doesn't make sense to me. in terms of the ceqa appeal. and the main issue i had. and i will not belabor the point, is the issues that supervisor peskin talked about. i usually find that planning at

times has gone very far, sometimes too far, about landmarking and preservation issues. i cannot believe they would allow work to happen without analyzing the impact. it's not e.i.r. i appreciate president breed's comments. the thing to me is the preservation issues. there is evidence that this is historic resource. in the morning, we learned that coxhead house, i will not get into the history of this, though it's amazing, will be likely eligible listing as a local landmark. our own landmark designation program is backlogged in san francisco.

it's not acceptable when it's against the wishes of homeowners. you only have to see pictures of this home, read what's in the record, to see the nature of the home itself. when i saw the proposal to construct a large home next door, along the windows that are part of the location, design and feeling of the home, i could not believe it was happening. in this case, i'm going to. what i would like to do is make a motion to table 19 and approve 20 and 21. and -- sorry about that. i am concerned there's a substantial evidence in the record before the board that the project presents unusual circumstances relating to historic resources and hazardous materials and as a result, the project may have a significant effect on the environment. that's my motion. >> president breed: supervisor farrell has made a motion.

>> to table 19 and approve 20 and 21? >> president breed: yes. seconded by supervisor peskin. madam clerk on the motion, please call the roll. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> supervisor kim: aye. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor sheehy: aye. >> supervisor tang: aye. >> president breed: aye. >> supervisor cohen: aye. >> supervisor farrell: aye. >> clerk: there are 11 ayes.

>> supervisor cohen: i would like to request that we close out our meeting in honor of mr. joe boss. joe boss was a district 10 residents for more than 30 years. he lived in the dog patch neighborhood. he dedicated his time, energy and livelihood to the entire community. he served on the eastern neighborhood citizens advisory committee for six years from 2011 until this summer. he served on the portero dog patch foundation before anyone can recall. he's been a steadfast neighbor and confidante. he was a tough negotiator. i can attest to this. oftentimes, we would butt heads, but worked together to find in the best interest of the neighborhood.

he was a tireless advocate. he worked on every bond issue, every community meeting with parking or bus routes or open space. joe was also a devoted husband and worked in close partnership with his wife, who has been left to grieve. and janet carpenelli, equally strong and forceful advocate. collectively, they made quite a team. i wanted you to know that joe was a father to tom and christina and absolutely grandfather to his beloved beatrice. joe boss had a sharp wit and a strong sense of justice. he had a big heart and cared

deeply about his community and everyone in it. i want to lift up his family in this great time of need. i also will comment that the entire district 10 community mourns his loss and will most certainly miss his leadership. the rest i submit. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor farrell said he would submit. back to you. i was going to reiterate, i would like to make a motion that we entire the board meeting in honor of joe boss. thank you. >> president breed: can we do that without objection? without objection, we'll do that. madam clerk, please call items 22-25. >> persons interested in determination of exemption under the california environmental quality act exemption approved by the planning commission on

november 23, 2017, for the project for cell services. >> supervisor kim: i want to thank members of the public that waited patiently. both parties have requested that it be postponed. i would like to motion a motion to continue. >> president breed: to what date? >> supervisor kim: february 27. >> president breed: it was seconded by supervisor ronen. on the motion, is there any public comment regarding the continuance? seeing none, public comment is please. colleagues, can we take that motion without objection? without objection, this item will be continued to february

27, 2018. madam clerk, are we finished with roll call for introductions? >> clerk: correct. >> president breed: we'll open it up to public comment. please read public comment and this is an opportunity for members of the public that would like to comment on our clovered session as well. >> may represent the board for items before the november, minutes, special order at 2:00 p.m., specifically on the closed session regarding labor negotiations and items 31 and 32. pursuant to the board's rules, direct your remarks to the board as a whole and not individual supervisors and nor to the audience. speakers using interpretation

assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time and if you would like to display a document please state such and remove the document when you want the screen to return to live coverage of the meeting. first speaker, please? >> thank you, madam clerk, ladies and gentlemen of the board. president and acting mayor breed, i again ask for your resignations. you violated your oaths of office. you swore to defend the u.s. constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and yet you have the citywide case management and community focus. a joint project with the san francisco campus of the university of california, which the city and county funds at the rate of $100 million per year! citywide, it's the assertive treatment program. it's responsible for involuntarily medicating and performing medical and surgical

procedures on residents of this city and county. they can do this by depriving its patients on life and liberty without due process. citywide also denies patients of freedom of association and right to petition the government can grievances. citywide perpetrates unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of item 4. citywide denies the right to jury trial. citywide exact truly and unusual punishment from its patients. denies its patients bodily integrity protected by amendment 9. it uses medicine to control its patients unnecessary and violates amendment 13.

it denies patients equal treatment under the law. if you do nothing to prevent them, so you have violated your oaths of office. i ask for your resignation! my name is misspelled. it's h-i-l-l-i-e-r. back to you. >> president breed: media services has assured me that our speaker system is working just fine. next speaker, please? >> make no mistake, we have an emergency here pertaining to homeless people out on the street. ed lee, god bless his soul, he calculated that part of the emergency that we have on our hands is $82.2 million deficit. by the same response, ed said if we continue to roll in the