Highlight some issues he had with the process itself. So here we are. I will turn it over to supervisor peskin. Supervisor breed supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin thank you, madam president , major leagues. Without pre judging the pre judging the use i want to thank the individuals to affixed their signatures to allow it to happen and for supervisor farrell for being gracious though it was in his district to allowing the hearing go forth. Regardless of the presentations well hear and whats in the written record, i want to start at the outset by saying that this is an extraordinary case. Unfortunately, not an isolated extraordinary case. But there is incredible historic are incredible Historic Resources in the city. And we have laws and procedures in place that failed in every single way in this instance. Thats not specifically whats before us but i take exception, with all due respect to counsel, for the real party and interest. We cannot talk about those things here today. We absolutely can talk about them because theyre part of the history. This was a part of San Franciscos pa try moany that was extraordinary. The building that was demolished that the department of building inspection failed at and respectfully the Planning Department failed at. I have spoken to the Zoning Administration. I think the Zoning Administrator could have done a better job and with all due respect to the City Attorney and ive had this discussion with supervisor farrell, the fact that was a lawsuit involved in this and yes, it did actually achieve the largest settlement of its kind in San Francisco history also i think is problematic insofar as no member knew about it and was part of it. Regardless of how we vote on the matter today, we need to use this as a teachable unit and learning lesson to make sure it doesnt happen again. There was a recent publication about another house also lost as were having conversations with policy conversations about residential expansion thresholds and section 317 of the code and why the definitions of demolition in the planning code are different from the Building Code and whether our fines are adequate, i hope this hearing informs that future policy work. Its noted in the moving paper, as a matter of fact, it was noted the property was unaffordable at 4. 5 million and now the finished product has an appraised value over 30 Million People would not rip houses like this down if the fines are commensurate to that kind of increase in value. Those are the kind of policy decisions i hope this hearing informs regardless of how we vote and regardless of the testimony away hear. Thank you, madam president. Supervisor breed now well have ten minutes for the appellant for the appellant representative to come forward and represent your case. Youre the appellant . Yes, and will be using overheads. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisor breed and members of the board of supervisors. Im Kathleen Courtney for the russian Hill Community association. Before you today is the appeal of the conditional use request for lot merger approved by the Planning Commission august 31. The conditional use authorization was the final step in a fiveyear process that resulted in the illegal demolition of the willis pope designed resident at 841 Chestnut Street in district 2. The conditional use for a lot merger was due to the developer adding a 2,000 square foot garage to the site. And it wound up straddling the Property Line of two lots. This construction was permitted because the Planning Department in error, approved the lot merger in 2015. This was just a long list of irregularities and missteps. The reason the project is before you is because the Planning Department and the developer needed to rectify that error. Otherwise, this tragedy would not have been before you. It would have flown under the radar. And governments are gone in its place as the director stated as a replica. Since the deed is done and the Historic Resource has been demolished, since the missteps and irregularities have been [indiscernible] by the settlement of june 7, since a fine has been assessed and the penalty has been paid, the real question is why is this lot even before the board of supervisors the reason is so a tragedy like this does not happen again. The august 31 Planning Commission hearing on the conditional use request for the lot was the first time the public was able to weigh in on the project. There had been complaints registered on outside the scope of the permit or illegal d demolition. How did the safeguards fail . Theres several related reasons. One, the lack of a consistent definition of demolition in the planning code and the Building Code. Two, a lack of coordination and communication between the department of building inspection and the Planning Department. A lack of comprehensive transparent and publicly access able processes. The misuse of a Zoning Administration administrator interpretation to avoid Public Notice of action and the access of penalties for such penalties that would dissuade developers who consider them simply the cost of doing business. Fortunately, its this fail in the demolition or what we often see is significant alterations tantamount to demolition occurs regularly in all districts, in all neighborhoods. In the summary dated october 22, john rahm detailed the flawed process in 2012 through the settlement in 2017. The history of serial permits that the director called out 21 and the responses of planning and building inspection staff are noted. It is evident from the permit history approvals were based on incomplete, insufficient or inconsistent information and calls into question the adequacy and experience and perhaps the professionalism of the staff of the departments. The director john rahm, also notes the developer has other ways to achieve its goals. Other paths to entitlement rather than use conditional use. Mostly the director states and i quote this case has set a Firm President to dissuade developers from circumventing the planning process in the future. Unfortunately, that is not true. In october, 49 hopkins avenue in district 8 designed by legendary modernist architect was illegally demolished while not unknown Historic Resource the residence was an important part of the citys history and its under review by an enforcement planner. To be clear, this appeal has no effect on the timing of construction. All the permits have been approved in the Settlement Agreement. Fine. Enforcement action did result in a sixmonth delay in construction while the developer and City Attorney negotiated a se sell settlement, no wonder neighbors are tired. It has no effect on the Settlement Agreement. Its a done deal. Its all over. The lot merger, however, was not a subject of the Settlement Agreement. This appeal is not about the dollar value of the penalty, its about a flawed process that resulted in the demolition of an Historic Resource. Planning director john rahm in his brief said theres other ways the developer can achieve the lot merger. The developer is an experienced, well connected Real Estate Developer which boasts on its historic accolades and knowledgeable staff. The same group which managed the design and construction on this site. All of the actions and activities that occurred over the last five years were deliberate. All of them were intentional. Nothing was inadvertent. In every perspective the residents is about city agencies profoundly failed process that yieldses yields yieldses to yields to lawyers and developers and process and the process has failed to protect a Historic Resource and failed the city. A loss like this we in San Francisco in the eyes of our many visitors and the residents who love our Architectural Resources we urge you to review the processes and procedures that led to the demolition of this historic residence. We urge you to remain the status 950 lombard and guarantee its preservation. We urge you to uphold this appeal as a lot merger via a commercial use is neither necessary or desirable. My neighbors will elaborate on the points. We thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Supervisor breed thank you, im going to pause the time. Are you one of the appellants or appellant representative for here to speak for Public Comment . Im here in support of the appeal. Supervisor breed so we havent called Public Comment yet so thank you. So is that the end of your presentation . I tried to make it as succinct as possible if youd like know keep talking id be delighted to. Supervisor breed no, youre the first person to make us so happy by not using the entire time. With that, madame clerk, lets open it up to Public Comment. At this time for members of the public who want to speak in support of the appeal, please come forward, youll have two minutes. If anyone is in support of the appeal, please line up to your right. First speaker. Good afternoon, supervisor breed, members of the board of supervisors. Im an architectural historian. I have to commend ms. Courtney for a succinct explanation. Im here to support the peel for the lot merger at 841 chestnut and appeal the destruction of the building. In the report of last june before it was demolished the building was a notable work by a master architect willis polk. Like remaining residents by julia morgan and aj brown the property was exemplary the architectural style and only the one of two known examples of polks rustic city House Designs in San Francisco. Unfortunately, the illegal demolition destruction of this building is another example of demolition by serial permitting with continual edeveloping permits at the site going back to a 2002 plan to add only a garage and elevator access to this building and much smaller intervention. This Speculative Development openly sets up incentives for developers to do work for great financial gain at risk of little penalty and applying for standards for reconstruction to the property is insulting. The appropriate standard in this case would have been sure it complied with rehabilitation, repair of existing historic material, using the standards of reconstruction is a mockery and after the fact attempt to confuse and cover up an illegal demolition and asking to you deny the authorization. Thank you. Supervisor breed thank you, next speaker, please. Im sorry, interest was a line of people im sorry, there was a line of speaker. Im third speaker but in charge of exhibits. Supervisor breed thank you. President breed, members of the board of supervisors i went to see on micro film we get online. In 2002 to 2011 this was the project on the overhead. It was an overhead and shaft for an elevator and stair and tunnel under the cliff. It left the cliff behind to Chestnut Street. In 2011, the owner who had put forward the plans sold the property and from 2011 to 2012 there were several revisions which changed the scope of work. The basement got larger, the cliff was retained and the garage was all the way over on 948, 950 lombard street. It was still a twostory basement with the cliff to the north. This was the last time important, the last time planning saw this or reviewed this permit application. From 2014 to the present, came a series of serial permits and there were complaints from the neighborhood, ten in all from the job site. The complaints were the wall was unsupported. Dbi kept the permit applications from going to planning. Planning never saw the basement was becoming a full story and the cliff had been removed and what we would have seen from the street still a beautiful shingle building in a garden setting is now a cliff with concrete and steel and glass that faces the street. This is not what ceqa approved supervisor breed thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is stephanie peek. I live in district two and im a homeowner there. I have a graphic. The graphic is actually from the planning code section 303 and reads the proposed use or feature will provide a development that is necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood or the community. Section 303 requires Decision Makers to look at the project. Maam, if you can pull the microphone down. Supervisor breed well start your time over and if you can speak directly in the microphone. The section from 303c1. The proposed use or feature will provide a development that is necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood or the community. And requires them to look at the requirement for conditional using. And i want to talk about several aspects of the project i believe are critical to understand in order for anyone to make a determination on the development as a whole and be allowed to testify. The permit would legalize the section 317 demolition that allows the project to move to the Planning Commission and now to you. Never went through a 311 Public Notice process even though demolitions under section 317 do require Public Notice. The Zoning Administrator used an interpretation intending to let them replace it without notice. In that instance the room and the building were non historic and the work was not demolition and the owner came in for a permit before doing the work. In todays case the result of the interpretation is to let developers to demolish the Historic Building. The public should have received a notice and taken the permit and the financial penalty seems the cost of doing business to ensure multimillion dollar projects are approved would the possibility of conditions or disapproval on the demolition of an Historic Building. Theres a fiveyear moratorium for illegal demolition of buildings but is never applied because the Building Department seldom considers them [bell] is that it . Supervisor breed yes. Is that the entire list . Thats a partial list. Supervisor breed thank you. Im john baruso. Developers are illegally demolishing houses knowing if caught they can absorb the penalties and still turn a profit. San francisco is world renown for its beauty fades a little with each architectureerasure and the loss of the architecture by willis polk is neither necessary or desirable and as city staff sorted out the destruction of the polk structure on chestnut, another illegal demolition made news designed by another architect was knocked down in october these two incidents send a simple message. The penalties for unlawful demolition are part of the equation. Developers are choosing profit over their duty of our architectural heritage. It hit wont stop without greater alignments between the departments and penalties and more education about the cultural value of the community resources. The austrian architect worked with Frank Lloyd Wright was of a modernist style. And of the five designed 49 hopkins was his first and its now gone. Purchased in january by 49 hop kings, llc, permits allowed for alteration not demolition and new construction. Without their calls dbi would never have known the residence was raised. And due to the complaint log supervisor breed thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Thank you, the previous speaker told you the sordid detail of another demolition of a home destroyed in San Francisco. This happens all the time but you dont hear about it. Maybe because the houses being demolished in the same fashion are not as prominent as the ones designed by either willis polk or richard noitra but nonetheless they make up the visual fabric and are they disguised as renovation often and for the most part owithout impunity and they pull away at the existing structure and before you note it the whole building is gone. [please stand by]. Had inspected and approved the rough framing. There you have it, this happens all the time and the only thing different about the case is that someone complained about it. Another factor in this, is the Planning Department that ignores the thresholds defined by section 317, which is tantamount to demolition. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, president breed and members of the board of supervisors. I live at 2626 hyde, just down the hill from the site in district 2. Im a former Historic Preservation officer for the city of san jose and the Historic Preservation commission. Im speaking in support ever the appeal. Among the criteria for conditional use authorization is the projects compatibility with the neighborhood and community as well as the determination that it will not be detrimental to the nature of the proposed site. The current condition of the site after the illegal demolition of the polk house appears less compatible than the originally approved project. As stated in todays staff report it does not seem that the inconvenience, expense, nec