pick and choose the businesses, but unfortunately, we don't get to choose what goes in. what we do is choose whether the businesses that want to do business can. there are spaces for smaller retailer and we'd love to have them. there is spaces for restaurants and we'd love to have them. there is a business saying can i be in this space, part of this neighborhood, and i can't see why we would say no. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> my name is brian springfield. i live one block from the location of sterling bank. i've lived there 21 years. and i live across street from a vacant commercial space zoned for restaurant use at 2175 market. it's never leased. it's sat vacant for three years now. 2175 was also the location of a business venture called myriad, like a food hall concept, multivendor. that struggled for a while and eventually failed. i support their application to move next door to the current location because i'm really concerned about the vacant store fronts in the castro. i've seen the closures of chow restaurant, the original location at church and market followed by cook shop that moved in right after them. across the street was grapevine, down the street, sushi, finntown and just recently cafe flora closed after 47 years of business at their location. that's just the restaurants. that's just as far down market street as sanchez street. so it's a real problem. i keep mentioning these restaurants because i hear some people are opposing the application because they want to see a restaurant go in this space, but wishing for something doesn't make it true. these commercial spaces become a problem for the neighborhood once vacant because they make worse on the situation on the streets in that they invite -- first of all, they reduce foot traffic and they invite people to camp out in the doorways of the businesses and this makes it difficult for the businesses that are staill operating to be successful. i don't want to see closures at all. sterling bank, their lease is up at the current location, so staying there is not an option. so the choice didn't between allowing them to move next door, or asking them to stay put, the choice is between one vacant store fronts and two vacant store fronts. i would rather see one than two. i urge you to support their application to move next door. i'll also sing steve adams praises if i have time. i was a resident of the neighborhood and he urged me to be on the board. he is actively recruiting to support and join the neighborhood organizations and i was a beneficiary of that. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm gwen, owner of a small business, ace mailing, and founder and current vice president of the northeast mission business association. i have been president of the small business commission and been a commissioner for years. and i want to say sterling wants to move next door. i think it is very, very important that we keep them exactly where they are in that location. they've given so much to the community. i also live on market, so i drive or walk past that every day. and i do want to say that from the holiday and christmas tree celebration in the castro, to supporting the sros and to being a really great lender and help to small businesses, i just can't imagine that we're not going to support sterling bank moving next door. we don't need any more vacancies and we do need sterling bank. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm stephen cornell. i am past president of the district merchants, past president of the small business network, past president of the small business commission. i have owned a business for 40 years on polk street. i am here to say something about sterling bank. i've been around for a long time. i've seen businesses come in. they want to be part of the neighborhood. they want to be part of the association. they want something. they need something to become part of us. and then when they don't need us, they go away. sterling bank has been part of all of these associations i just talked about all the time. they didn't want something. they wanted just to part of our association, part of our functions. everything we do. they'll go and buy tickets for dinner and show up. they don't say, hey, we bought ten tickets and we have eight tickets available for anybody. they come with the staff. they come and they're part of us. they are really a great business partner. if all of the rest of the community could do that, we wouldn't have any problems. we should be bending over backwards for sterling bank to move 100 feet away. please approve this. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is brian spears. so i'm kind of wearing two hats. i'm the developer of the property and i'm also the owner of lucky 13 bar, which is a small business on the same block. i've been a customer of sterling bank for over 20 years. i personally know steve and i think he's an outstanding individual and has done a lot for the community. >> i'm sorry. are you saying you're the developer of the property? so the owner of the property? so you're somewhat the project sponsor? >> i'm associated with the project. >> president melgar: your time to speak was in the beginning. >> i thought as a neighbor i could speak. >> cory smith, i'm speaking as individual, resident and someone who does not bank at sterling bank, but i've spent a lot of time and know the folks and stephen well. and his reputation for doing good work for the city absolutely proceeds him. and it was walking before and he said we're trying to move next door. i'm sure he's spent a fair amount of time as president complaining about how the city gets in the way at times of businesses being able to do business. it's the concept of moving next door that has become complicated and burdensome than it probably needs to be. so for this item itself, wholeheartedly encourage you to move it forward and grant the cu, because we have a good community member who wants to stay in the community, and wants to continue doing work with the community and that should be applauded. >> president melgar: any other public comment? >> walter parsley. >> you've already spoken, sir. >> you're part of the project team. >> i'm also a resident. >> president melgar: sorry. >> jonas: you've spoken. >> president melgar: any other public comment? with that, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to ask mr. adams to speak a little bit about the size of your new operation. and i think that is most of the problem. mr. adams has been forever the voice of small business. a number of years ago, this commission had a subcommittee which i served on together with commissioner fung, where we worked with mr. adams and talked about the nuts and bolts of small business. however, now, i'm asking you, and as i think the department, you're moving from a small space into a significantly larger space. >> yes. >> i think it is the frontage, including the size how it affects the public realm where a bank itself is not seen as a sidewalk, neighborhood, as much as as any other type of use. speak about why you're enlarging to this extent? >> well, it's a little bit bigger than the space we're in now. >> twice as large i think. >> the space i'm in now goes further back. it goes almost back to 14th street, but it is larger. one of the reasons -- but it would be activated. a lot of people think banks are only open between 9:00 and 5:00. the reason i want to stay in that area, i do service -- i do a lot of small business lending. and i do a lot of lending period. and my lenders will be working in the evenings. so the space is going to be activated, not only during the day, but in the evenings. i have a rule, too. i don't like shades pulled down or anything like that. we'll have a community room in the building, in the space, a conference room. my old space next door, when i had the room early on in the late 90s and early 2000s, that space was activated three nights a week. we had events there. golden gate business association met there. a lot of the neighborhood groups meet there. so the space will be used at night. and i know a lot of people hear that, but we proved it and did that. the community room at chase is about to go away so i have a lot of community groups saying, if i can't use this, can i use the new conference room? of course. i let you use it before, i'll let you use it now. there will be nighttime activity in the space. i've been working with the cbd. if i get this, i'll be installing security cameras on 14th street. and by the metro muni entrance on the other side and working with the cbd and mission station and northern station to create a sense of security there. which you don't have now. and i've also sending a contract for steam cleaning of that corner if i get this. and i did it so, at least once a week steam cleaning on that corner, but if i need it two or three times, i'm the boss, i call and say, steam clean. i drive by and see a dirty sidewalk, i hate dirty sidewalks. but that space will be activated. you know, if you've been in the bank branches now, we have artwork, san francisco artwork in most of the bank branches. we have a castro theme that is going in there with historical pictures and stuff from the neighborhood. so the space will be activated. it won't be sitting dark after hours. >> the reason i'm asking him to speak about it is, he is basically a neighborhood business person. and that still doesn't solve the dilemma of what the department and we, ourselves need to consider, but i have a ear for that, because community members who are his clients coming and speaking, i'm torn on the subject matter. i like to work by the books and support the department's findings, but i'm also curious what is the rest of the commissioners are thinking. >> commissioner johnson: i, too, appreciated you asking the question about the space and the dilemma that we are in. however, i feel like the timing of this conversation is great because of the earlier conversation we had today about the ncds and the fact that we need to find creative solutions and really update, i think, some of the ways we've been looking at these commercial corridors to support our thriving -- the thriving of our corridors and businesses. i also just recall that two hearings ago we had a project that we also considered that was formula retail. and approved that because we also felt like just given this corridor, having a thriving business there would be helpful. and that was nothing to say for all of the community support that has come out talking about how they actively use this space, talking about how it supports small and local businesses and how the space would be activated after hours. i see this as an invitation to take a nuanced approach. so i'm fully supportive of this project. >> commissioner fung: planning, quantitative metrics perhaps provide an indication. they're not always the sole answer you know, for the planning issues and land use issues we face. and you have to have a qualitative overlay on top of that. the logic says, you're there now, they're moving one door, the number stays the same. you know, just the frontage, linear footage, i understand provides an indication, however, you know, the logic here is that it's still the same in terms of the number of formula retail. so i'm supportive of the conditional use. >> commissioner koppel: so i work close by. i'm on the first block of fillmore so i'm very familiar with the neighborhood, the area. and what i like most about where i work is the sense of community. i've signed up to pass out neighborhood flyers for the dtna and i probably do it every month. and this area is in dire need of filled store fronts. although we might not have agreed with mr. spears housing policies, we're not talking about that today. he ace local developer. he is a san francisco guy. he's got a couple of different properties going on. and we should help him fill his ground floor retail spaces. i make a motion to approve. >> commissioner diamond: i thought project proponent and the supporters made very persuasive arguments and i am supportive of this, but it also strikes me seconding commissioner johnson's and fung's comments, this may be an opportunity to rethink some of the rules that we use for formula retail. i'd be happy to second the motion. >> very quickly, with all due respect, unfortunately, your packet did not include -- so you have it make a motion. >> i think they can create some findings. i was just going to speak to that. >> a couple of things. the oral of retail is work world of retail is changing quickly. it wasn't long ago we were in the neighborhood to put this provision in the code that said we would recommend denial if it was above 20%. it was not that long ago. so it's changed fast. i appreciate that. and i respectfully disagree with the speaker who says this doesn't apply. whether it's 20, 21, 22, if it's above 20, that's the way it works. having said that, the notion was to do with what commissioner fung said. that's our recommendation. it doesn't bind the condition and there is a qualitative judgment you have to make with the recommendation in either direction. but it does speak to the point that the nature of retail is changing really quickly. and we -- it's the process of changing the code doesn't happen as quickly as you all know. and so this is one of -- on that bucket list of things we have to look at with retail, this issue of formula retail and where it applies. when we did the formula retail changes about three, four years ago? i'm maybe dating myself. we looked at this idea of increasing the number from 10 to 25 or 30. and we unfortunately did not get support for that. i think it may be worth looking at that again. clearly, there is a big difference between a bank like sterling and a bank like wells fargo or chase. and the formula controls don't acknowledge that difference. those are the kinds of things we need to look at in change of -- in light of the changing conditions in retail. >> president melgar: yes to all of the above. when we changed that a few years ago, it doesn't seem like it was that long ago, but it actually was long ago. in terms of what has happened in the world and the rise of amazon and a bunch of things that have happened. so i lived in the neighborhood and the neighborhood -- i no longer do, i live somewhere else, but it's completely transformed. in the neighborhoods where we have implemented those tight controls, and especially around formula retail, we have seen vacancies raise. so you know, 24th street, this neighborhood, north beach. so i really want us it look at that with evidence, empirically to see, is it just that the world has changed or is there cause and effect in terms of what we have done? this morning we had started this conversation based on commissioner fung's right on comments but i want to take seriously the neighborhood by neighborhood approach, because you know, geary street, commercial corridor is very different from castro, from 24th street. and there is different needs, different socioeconomic customers in these corridors, but the neighborhoods are very different from destination retail for example. and you know, we kind of treat it all the same. and then i think a more knew -- nuanced view is overdue. those are my comments. i'm totally in support of the project and i wish you luck. >> commissioner moore: i still would differentiate if chase was asking me the question, i would support the department of saying no, because the effect of big banks like chase and wells fargo are devastating. they're basically freeze an area into motionlessness. perhaps we at some point can work on requirements of what part of the operation is near the window. what is it we want to see at night near the window? i don't know. i'm not going to design it for you. but it could animate what is happening in the space without looking at static and dead staring into a.t.m.s or moving neon signs, et cetera. that is where the rubber hits the road. it needs to be said that a bank that is a local grown bank is the type of fellowship it has, would still have my support and chase would not. >> when the commission is ready, i -- in order to take action, i have made a list of potential findings to read into the record that summarize what the discussion has been so far. >> thank you. >> so the findings would be that this particular use would fill a vacant space and given the nature of the corridor, that is necessary and desirable. it also would support a local business. and additionally, the space would be activated after hours. and overall, the number of formula retail businesses would stay the same along this corridor. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioner moore: one element which i would like to see. that is a social component to the work which i found interesting. and that deals with lending to sro. i found that very important, particularly when we talk about the corridor and the overlap in castro. >> if there is nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with standard conditions of approval and findings read into the record on that motion. diamond aye. fung aye. johnson aye. moore aye. koppel aye. melgar aye. so moved, the motion passes unanimously, 6-0. [please stand by] [please stand by] we're going take a small little break. >> clerk: -- for thursday, january 9, 2020. i would like to remind the public to please silence your cell phones that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, we left off on 15 a and b on your calendar for the property at 2017 green street. the appeal of the preliminary hearing negative declaration and discretionary reviews. for the purposes of this hearing, we're calling up both matters together. the staff will give a presentation on the appeal and the discretionary reviews. the appellant will be afforded time, and the d.r. requesters will be afforded their time. the project sponsor will then have an opportunity to present their project and respond to the appeal and the discretionary reviews, after which we'll hear rebuttals from the discretionary review requesters and accept one period of public comment. >> president melgar: yeah, hold on, hold on, hold on. we -- commissioner diamond has requested to speak. >> commissioner diamond: i want to disclose to the commission that i have a personal relationship with one of the d.r. requesters who lived to the east of the project opponent. our sons were friends in school, and so we've been social friends with them. i don't believe that relationship would have any impact on my ability to be objective and impartial, and i feel like i can fulfill my fiduciary duties as a planning commissioner and would not propose to recuse myself. >> president melgar: thank you. jonas, just so i'm clear, we are calling both matters together. >> clerk: the appeal and the d.r. together, yes. >> president melgar: but what staff will present will be on both. >> clerk: it will be, but just for clarity to separate the ceqa determination, you will vote on that separately, and if you vote to hold up the declaration, you will take up the matter of the preliminary review process. >> president melgar: just for purposes of the process, after staff does the presentation, we will hear from the d.r. requesters first. >> clerk: the appellant of the mitigated -- >> president melgar: who are the same? >> clerk: well, yes. >> president melgar: and then, do we have to have a separate presentation on the d.r.? >> clerk: we should have some presentation. you can certainly limit the time as the chair. >> president melgar: sorry. i should have cleared that up before. but then, for the project sponsor, he will come up after the d.r. presentation on the appeal and both requests. >> clerk: that's correct. and you have that flexibility, as well, to modify their time, but generally speaking, the project sponsor would receive ten minutes for the appeals and ten minutes for the d.r.s because there are multiple d.r. requesters. >> president melgar: okay. thank you very much for clearing that up, jonas. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm jeannie poling, planning department staff. joining me are additional staff members. could i get the overhead, please. the item before you is a preliminary proposed mitigat n mitigation. also in the packet is a response to an appeals letter and a separate response letter that we received after the close of the appeal period. you also received an additional seven-page letter from the appellant. this raises no new issues that weren't already addressed in our appeal responses. the decision before you is whether to adopt a motion to affirm the proposed mitigated declaration or m.n.d. if you decide not to review the m.n.d., then the discretionary review cannot be conducted today. if you decide not to amend the m.n.d., you may instead propose the m.n.d. back to the planning department for specified revisions or you may overrule the proposed m.n.d. and require staff to file an interim report if you find substantial evidence to find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. first, i'll briefly describe the proposed project, and then i'll respond to the concerns raised in the appeal. chris may will respond more to the history in his d.r. presentation. the product -- project would add an a.d.u. and expand the basement garage level. the project propose is a full structural and seismic upgrade, partial excavation of the rear yard and facade alterations. the project has a complicated history of environmental review. we issued an exemption for the project in may of 2017, and after a permit that legalized excavation work was issued, the appellant filed an appeal of the exemption in november of that year. in january 2018, the board of supervisors upheld the exemption appeal and directed planning staff to conduct a more thorough analysis of the proposed project, which we did. we prepared an initial study that includes a mitigation measure requiring the project sponsor to perform ongoing coordination with the planning department during the building department's review of structural plans and project construction. the initial study concludes that with this mitigation measure, potential impacts related to historic resources and geology and soils would be reduced to less than significant. we published the pmnd in 2019. the appellant represents the owner of 2421 green street, also known as the cox head house. comprehensive responses to assertions are provided in our written appeal response, but i will briefly summarize them. first, structural integrity would be followed by complying with the building requirements. the appellant's request for additional d.b.i. review of the project at this time is premature, since the sponsor has not submitted structural plans to d.b.i. and cannot do so until the plans are reviewed. second, the proposed project would not result in indirect impacts on the coxhead house. while the proposed project may alter the amount of sunshine on the coxhead house's rear yard, it would not diminish the setting such that there would be an impact on the resource. neighbors may not like the project's effect on their views and their access to light, however, affect sun views and light are more appropriately addressed through the discretionary review process. third, the project would not result in impacts related to the release of hazardous materials because it's in compliance with san francisco health code chapter 22-a, as overseen by the department of public health. the project is on maher map of possible sites because it is on the site of an underground tank that was removed. it's subject to review of the health department pursuant to the maher ordinance. the health department may waive maher requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the property has been continuously zoned as residential use since 1921, has been in residential use since that time, and no evidence has been presented to create a reasonable belief that the soil and/or groundwater may contain hazardous substances. the project met the conditions for waiver and therefore the health department indicated that no further oversight is required. nonetheless, the health department reviewed the test results and found that the project does not require a site mitigation plan. the health department also confirms that the soil testing procedures and locations were appropriate. in conclusion, the expansion of a building adjacent to existing buildings on a hillside is not unusual in san francisco. projects of similar size and scope are typically eligible for exemption from ceqa. we prepared a pmnd for this project in response to the board of supervisors ceqa findings when they upheld the exemption appeal. as part of our analysis, we visited the project site multiple times, coordinated with our preservation team to review potential impacts on cultural resources, and coordinated with the building department's plan review services division to review the project's geotechnical reservation before d.b.i. would do so. we also worked with d.b.i. to undergo monitoring and coordination with the planning and building departments over the course of structural design and construction. implementation of this mitigation measure, which would become one of the project's conditions of approval would reduce to less than significant any impacts related to geology and soils and the direct affects of historic resources. thus no reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment would occur from the proposed project. further, the appellant has proposed no substantial evidence that would warrant preparation of an e.i.r. or that the pmnd is otherwise deficient. a detailed review by the proposed project by the building department as requested by the appellant is premature at this time. structural review cannot be conducted until after the planning department and d.b.i. review and approve the site permit and after structural plans are submitted to d.b.i. we recommend that you uphold the pmnd and not require further analysis or an e.i.r. because such efforts would not provide any meaningful analysis beyond what was conducted for the pmnd and more importantly would not reveal different results from the pmnd. by upholding the pmnd, you do not restrict or limit your ability to hold the discretionary review. this concludes my portion of the presentation, and christopher may will present the discretionary review. >> you have before you three requests of the discretionary review of a proposal proposing to construct one and three-story residential addictions. since the october 2017 neighborhood notification and subsequent d.r. filings, the project sponsor has revised the project to include a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit which measures approximately 1,023 square feet. the upper floors would decrease from approximately 4,118 square feet to 4,092 square feet. before i proceed with the d.r. request, i'd like to provide the commission with a more detailed permitting and enforcement history of the project. in april 2017, the project sponsor filed a building permit application for the construction of the horizontal rear i additions, the expansion of the garage, alterations to the front facade and the full foundation replacement. the following month, environmental planning staff issued a categorical exemption for the project, determining that the building is not an individual historic resource or a contributor to a historic district, and the project would not have significant impacts on the environment. a few weeks later, the project sponsor obtained over-the-counter approval of a building permit application by d.b.i. without review by the planning department. the scope of work for that permit included the deteriorated basement wall with new landscaping walls in the back yard. in september 2017, d.b.i. received a complaint that work was being done beyond the scope of the foundation permit, including a horizontal addition. d.b.i. determined that the scope of work warranted review by the planning department and suspended the permit the following day. planning department staff reviewed the foundation permit plans and determined that while the excavation and expansion of the garage level was compliant with the planning code and was in accordance with the ceqa determination, one of the proposed retaining walls at the rear aligned with the foundation of the proposed horizontal rear addition that was subject to planning code section 311, neighborhood notification, which had not yet occurred. planning department staff reviewed the revised plans with the zoning administrator who determined that the department could approve the revised permit if the retention wall coinciding with the rear retaining wall was removed. on october 23, 2017, the planning department issued neighborhood notification for the proposed horizontal and vertical additions under the original building permit application. between november 28 and 30, three d.r.s were filed, and on november 22, an appeal of the ceqa document was filed with the board of supervisors on the basis that the project would have significant impacts on the adjacent historic resource at 2421 green street. the coxhead house is a three story single-family dwelling that extends approximately 35 feet beyond the wall of the existing subject building. it has several windows that overlook the subject property building and its rear yard. on june 26, 2019, environmental planning staff issued a preliminary mitigated negative declaration which was subsequently appealed on behalf of the owner of 2421 green street, who is also one of the d.r. requesters. as you've heard, environmental planning staff recommended that the commission adopt the motion to uphold the pmnd. this was originally scheduled to be heard in june 2019 but has been rescheduled numerous times because of the appeals. serial permitting is typically characterized by work that occurs piece meal in order to avoid a process such as neighborhood notification or to circumvent requirements, such as the calculation of impact fees. it would not be uncommon for a project sponsor to obtain a separate permit to replace windows or remodel a bathroom, neither of which would trigger neighborhood notification and apply for another permit for a back yard addition, which would trigger neighborhood notification. the sponsors subsequently submitted applications for permits which did trigger neighborhood notifications. the d.r. requesters also allege that the project is not adequately terraced per the cow hollow neighborhood design guidelines. the project is located on a laterally sloping lot, whereas the terracing guidelines illustrate scenarios where terracing is recommended only for upsloping or down sloping lots. nevertheless, the residential design advisory team reviewed the original project in september 2017 and again in december 2017, following the submission of the d.r. request and both times found that the project appropriately respected the neighborhood topography and the neighborhood context, preserving the stepping down of the hill along green street. the proposed addition massing is reduced on upper levels, maintaining privacy as well as access to air, light, and midblock open space. the massing was found to be consistent with the cow hollow neighborhood guidelines. the existing windows on the front facade could be either repaired or replaced in kind with aluminum clad windows as long as those were compatible with the surrounding windows in the neighborhood. in response, the project sponsor has submitted a revised front elevation, indicating that the replacement windows would be smaller than originally proposed and would be clad in wood and painted in a dark trim. after review, planning department staff has demmed th -- determined that the project meets the application request and does not exceed the permit request. moreover, the d.r. requester's concerns regarding light and privacy are not substantial. in addition, the department notes that the proposed a.d.u. on the first floor accounts for almost all of the floor area added to the building, while the primary dwelling unit will actually decrease in size. the remainder of the additional floor areas are for shared access to the garage level. planning staff reviewed the demolition calculation statistics and considered that the deemed project is not demolition and is not requesting any variances. thus, they request you deny the appeal and take d.r. as advised. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you. we will now hear from the appellant and project sponsor. >> hello, commissioners. i'm representing the owner of coxhead house, which is immediately uphill of the proposed project. the coxhead house is this property here. the subject property that's proposed for construction is here, just downhill, on a 24% slope. it's one of those streets with stairs. it's very steeply sloped. the coxhead house is known to be eligible as a national historic site. ernest cox was one of the first people who used wood shingles. other than the frank lloyd wright house in chicago, this is one of two artist owned residences in the united states. it's a very significant property. our concern is this project, which would expand the neighboring property from 4,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet, a floor area ratio to 2.5, in a neighborhood where the ratio is usually 1.0, it's going to allegedly be an a.d.u. -- i don't know if it meets the requirement for that, but it's a very large subterranean excavation, 13 feet deep. the coxhead house was built in 1893 with a single layer historic brick foundation, which is part of the historic quality of the home. our concern and the concern of the board of supervisors notably is this could cause the coxhead house to collapse. it would vastly undermine the foundation and undermine the historic qualities of the home. i'd like to start with the board of supervisors, because this matter's been to the board of supervisors twice already. the highlighted portion here -- let me get out of the closed captioning. the highlighted portion here is what the board of supervisors found after considering testimony from our experts. they held that the proposed project holds unusual circumstances related to historic resources and hazardous materials, and the project "may have a significant effect on the environment." that's the board of supervisors, 11-0, including current mayor london breed, who was then the president of the board. now, that's a notable finding because as commissioner diamond knows, the legal standard for an environmental impact report is is there a fair argument that the project may have any adverse environmental impact. that's the legal standard set by communities for a better environment, for south coast air quality management district, a case that i argued in front of the california supreme court. the board of supervisors has made that precise finding. neither staff nor this planning commission has the ability to reverse that finding. that finding is administration res judicata. if the developer wanted to challenge that finding, the time was to take a writ of mandate within 30 days of the board of supervisors' decision. they didn't. that's a final finding made on the basis of an extensive factual record. the board of supervisors relied on evidence from dr. lawrence karp, who you will hear from today, ph.d. who conclud-- who concluded that the project would profoundly affect the nature of the coxhead house. they also sought conclusions from matthew hagerman, that remediation plans are required to safeguard public health. simply stated, neither the staff or this commission have the power to reverse a final finding of the board of supervisors. furthermore, the mnd, the mitigated negative declaration itself contains evidence that the project will have significant adverse impact. the m.n.d. states, on page 65, the project has the potential to result in significant impacts related to protection of the adjacent foundation of 2421 green street that could become unstable as a result of this project. that's the pmnd. that's not our experts, that's the city staffs' conclusion. now this is not a theoretical risk. other projects approved by this department have resulted in catastrophic results. this is 121 crown terrace, approved by staff. it fell down a hillside, despite alleged compliance with building codes. now here, the pmnd said we've mitigated the risk. trust us. here's the mitigation. if unacceptable earth movement occurs, is encountered during construction, the project excavation shall be halted, and a geotechnical engineer shall evaluate if additional measures are needed. of course we can't wait until unacceptable earth movement occurs to figure out what we're going to do because by then, this fragile, valuable historic resource will be tumbling down the hillside. now a fundamental part of ceqa law is designed to have preapproval mitigation so we avoid the harm. we don't wait until it falls down the hill, we come up with the mitigation measures before project approval occurs and before project construction commences. soil contamination. this project is on the city's only maher map of -- own maher map of contaminated sites. this is the soil contamination allegedly -- this is the city's map, not mine. the pmnd relies on some new soil testing. that soil testing was done in 2018. our hydrogeologist, matthew hagerman analyzed the samples. they happen to have been taken from beneath the garage, an area that was reconstructed in 1980. in other words, according to matthew hagerman, hydrogeologist, these samples were taken from the only area on the site that is known to have been cleaned up, oddly reminiscent from what happened at hunters point, where tetratech took samples from an area that was known to be clean. we saw what happened there. carol karp found that there were impacted to the historic resources, but the pmnd found that it could contamination the resources of the historic adjacent foundation of 2421 green street. that's the pmnd. also, carol karp found that contrary to what the staff is telling you, the project does in fact affect views of the project from public streets. this is a photograph taken of the coxhead house from pierce street. those flags are the story poles that outline the outline of the project. clearly, they block views from the coxhead house almost entirely. according to u.s. versus montecito, this is a significant view under ceqa. this is the view of the poles from inside the house. clearly, this will adversely affect light and air and significantly affect the historic resource. this is clearly substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have adverse environmental impacts, which is the legal standard. under ceqa, if there is a disagreement among experts, that disagreement is supposed to be resolved in an e.i.r. here, at the very least -- i understand that the city staff disagrees with our experts. that's a disagreement among experts, and under the negative declaration standard, that disagreement among experts must be resolved in approximate an environmental impact -- in an environmental impact report. we therefore ask this commission to direct staff to prepare an e.i.r. for this project, analyze these impacted, come up with appropriate mitigation measures, and not consider discretionary review at all which would be premature until the e.i.r.'s prepared. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. so we will now hear from the second d.r. requester. >> clerk: well, that was in regard to the appeal to the preliminary mitigated negative declaration. so i suppose you could ask the project sponsor to response to the appeal or you could go on with the d.r.s and let the project sponsor respond to both. >> president melgar: this is for the hearing, though. >> clerk: okay. you have three d.r. requesters, and they get five minutes each. >> president melgar: okay. you are the d.r. requesters. >> yes. would you like us to respond now? >> president melga >> president melgar: they were called together. >> i'll keep this short. we do believe that this project created extraordinary -- presents extraordinary circumstances, which is the d.r. standard for a variety of reasons, including the ones i just laid out. this is very unusual. i want to emphasize, we're not talking about a neighborhood dispute. this is a historic resource, and historic resources are treated different. they require a heightened level of scrutiny. there's not a lot of them in the city, and there's not many that would be threatened in the way this project threatens the coxhead house. so the -- listed historic resources would be one fact that d.r. would be appropriate. second, it's on the city's own maher map of contaminated sites. we're not saying oh, maybe there's contamination there. the city said it by putting it on the maher map. the cow hollow design guidelines have bye-been appro by this commission, and therefore, they're binding and enforceable. the design guidelines provide heightened standards above the zoning code, including projects on shared open space, which this project does. it expands to four stories high, including neighborhood open space. the design guidelines also state that the structure should be consistent with volume and massing in the neighborhood. as i mentioned, the typical volume ratio in this neighborhood is 1.0. this project would be 2.5, more than double the floor area ratio, so it's inconsistent with the massing in the neighborhood. the neighborhood design guidelines on page 23 state that the project should comply with terracing. terracing means when you're on a steep slope, as this is, each home should be -- the downhill home should belower than the uphill home. they specifically call this out so the uphill home can have a look over the downhill home. as these pictures show, this project obliterates the view from the uphill home, so clearly violates the neighborhood design guidelines with respect to terracing. and finally, the neighborhood guidelines at 28 say the proposed project should respect any historic resources in the area. clearly, the coxhead house is admittedly a historic resource. this project thoroughly disrespects that historic resource and therefore violates the neighborhood design guidelines. therefore, we believe that discretionary review is appropriate. the sponsor should be required to design the project within the existing envelope. however, we said before we do not believe the commission should reach discretionary review because sec rareview in the form of an environmental impact report is required prior to any approvals. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. drury. >> clerk: and mr. drury, you repair who? >> philip kaufman, owner and resident of 2421 green street. >> president melgar: thank you. we will now hear from appellant number two. >> okay. i'm speaking on behalf of susan berg and mike lamphart. they live adjacent to 2417. they're in this white house that you can see on this -- that you can see on the map, and i'm going to read their testimony. i know there's a crunch time here, but i owe them that. we recognize the right of the property owners to improve their homes. we have remodelled our house and many of our neighbors have done so, but we have gone about it in a fairway. we followed city regulations and policies and the cow hollow guidelines and worked with our neighbors. when we remodelled our home, we did so within the existing footprint and building envelope. what the developer has done is the complete opposite of this. instead of playing fair and by the rules, he has done work without permits, has disregarded the neighbors' concerns and has prepared plans that are inconsistent with key principles of the residential design guidelines and the cow hollow design guidelines. the cow hollow association wrote a letter on december 7 opposing the project, and for some reason, it was not considered in the packet, and i have copies of it which i will file with you at the end. we're very concerned about the developer's conduct. there have been several notices of violation conduct and stop work conduct already. work has been done exceeding permits, without permits, and the developer has intentionally let the property fall into disrepair. we're really grateful that the neighbors on the block have observed and reported this activity and that d.b.i. and the planning department has responded to complaints before the entire house was demolished. for more than a month last year, the developer let streams of water pour out of the home and down the sidewalk. this is a photograph of the chimneys. the developer removed the chimneys from the house, right there, without a permit, stating that it was a hazard. i believe that the city or the planning or one of the boards requested that the developer cover the holes, so this was last winter during a rainy period. that was not done in time, and since then, water has been pouring through that house, and i believe, if i'm correct, that the house has been officially classified as abandoned. the windows were left open during the rainy season, and water poured out through the front of the house, down the street, and it was reported by one of the neighbors who contacted the department of public works. so this is the situation that we've been dealing with. the developer has made some minor changes to the original project design by slightly altering the facade and inserting an a.d.u., but the massing is the same. it remains inconsistent with the design guidelines, and this is our reason for filing the d.r. it does not respect midblock open space. it expands the footprint of the house 17 feet out into the rear yard, and you've seen the photographs of that. our -- we have proposed an alternative design that would satisfy the builder's want to expand the home. if the developer were to remodel the home in the existing footprint and not push the house back, he would have a six bedroom, 5,279 square foot home with a two-car garage that could accommodate a large family without significantly impacting the immediate neighbors and larger neighborhood. and i will stop there. and i would like to present this. this is the letter from the cow hollow association that was sent in but not included. >> president melgar: thank you very much. you can just leave it there, and jonas will pass it around. thank you very much. we will now hear from the third d.r. requester. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is louise beja. i was here with my husband, but he had to leave. so i would like to -- in the interests of time, i will not repeat any of the points made by the other two d.r. requesters, but i'd like to incorporate them and say that i agree with them very strongly. one thing i would like to address is the planning -- is the staffers said something -- the cow hollow guidelines, as you know, have been adopted as advisory, but they are very highly respected, and they're very important for the character-defining features of our neighborhood, and the midblock open space is one of our most important, beloved features. the coxhead house, i believe, goes back past the other houses 30 feet, and the proposed addition goes back 18 feet. the developer says well, you split the difference, go back half, and that makes it okay. i understand from a mathematical, or if you're putting three blocks, i understand. but i think that conceptually, it does not make sense. if you -- the historic coxhead house was built a long time ago. they didn't know they were encroaching into the midblock open space. and they say because you're next to this historic house, it's okay for you to go back 18 feet into the midblock open space, which is a huge incursion, i think is just wrong. to say it's okay for him to go back 18 feet, i think this is a historic house, so maybe we should consider whether going back 18 feet is not proper. so our position was that it's not proper, and so with that, i will thank you very, very much for your efforts. i know it's late, and i know that you're taking a lot of consideration, and we all appreciate it on both sides. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you very much. we will now take public comment, i guess on the peal and the d.r. request. >> clerk: you should probably hear from the d.r. requester and then take public comment. >> president melgar: so we'll hear from the project sponsor on both the d.r. and the public request. >> clerk: so they'll get 20 minutes. >> hi, commissioners. i'm chris durkin, owner of 2421 green street. the project was scheduled for planning commission hearing nine times and has been continued and delayed for no legitimate or legal reasons. the delays were requested by the district supervisor. we know that the planning department and this commission have been subject to enormous political pressure with no legal basis or rationale. this is obvious, if you think about how it would be possibly, about a 1,000 square foot addition to a single-family home could trigger a negative declaration. this has never been required of any project before in san francisco. the planning department and planning commission have approved much larger and more complex projects by way of categorical exemptions under ceqa, which is what should have happened under this project. this has not been a fair process for me. i'm sure many of you are aware that the project opponent has used enormous power, wealth, and political influence to unreasonably and unlawfully delay the approval of a simple building permit to remodel my property. i've lived and worked in san francisco for 16 years. my wife is from el salvado, and we have two kids, both of whom attend school in district two. with my current residence being the only exception, none of these projects have been in front of the planning commission. i work diligently to make neighbors happy, which is not easy. i know it can cause fear to people to feel that there's a change in the neighborhood. the opponents are calling this a spec project, which it is not. i told them at the beginning that i considered residing at the property, but considering how i've been treated by the neighbors, that won't be happening. i have a very positive relationship with d.b.i., and i've done everything they asked me with regard to this project, and i'll continue to work with the department until completion. the neighbors have engaged in filing numerous false complaints with d.b.i. at one point, they called in so many complaints that d.b.i. sent the head of code enforcement to my property for a site visit. during the meeting, no violations were found. instead, d.b.i. observed the d.r. requesting neighbors conducting structural framing work on their property with no permit. the code enforcement officer immediately went over and issued an m.o.v. for work with no permits. it should be noted that my construction personnel removed unsafe chimneys as part of construction work. in the interests of safety, construction crews removed the unsafe brick chimneys so they wouldn't collapse or worse. these were unbraced and made of unreinforced masonry, which are not allowable under the code. i've made consistent good faith efforts to address neighbor concerns. i met with mark lamphart, owner of 2415, several times, and we've had positive meetings and interactions. unfortunately we couldn't proceed with a settlement cause the appellant, mr. kaufman, objected. i've exhaustively requested to meet with mr. kaufman. he has refused or not responded to all my requests. instead of working towards settlement, he filed a lawsuit against the planning commission and the city of san francisco as a stall tactic. that lawsuit had no merit and was dismissed by a ceqa judge immediately. i've tried in earnest to arrange a meeting so i can explain this is a very ordinary project, and it is in no way a risk to his property. i urge the commission to ask mr. kaufman why he's refused to meet with me and to work towards a solution. these facts highlight how unreasonable he's been throughout the entire process. still, i've continued to make exhaustive efforts to meet his demands and reach a resolution. the new garage that they're opposing is actually 7 feet away through solid rock from his house foundation. i intentionally kept this wall away from the property to give them peace of mind. i've clarified over and over that the foundation will not affect his foundation. his expert produced a report with falsified claims that the new foundation proposed to attach to the current foundation. it's also the report that the board of supervisors inadvertently relied on when they granted the ceqa appeal. i've offered multiple times to meet with mr. karp to discuss the technical aspects of the foundation, all of which were declined. the key aspects of the karp report are factually incorrect and should not be relied on by anyone. i've offered complete access to my property for mr. kaufman. i've offered to pay for a new foundation for mr. kaufman along the property -- the shared property line and to maintain his existing brick foundation wall. he declined. i've offered to place $250,000 in an escrow account as insurance against damage during excavation. no damage will occur, but the funds would be available to mr. kaufman should any damage occur. he declined that, as well. i hired a vibration engineer to propose analysis on the proposed project. it's charles salter associations, a highly recorded engineering firm. i've incorporated the use of shingle siding to be compatible with mr. kaufman's siding. i've greed to work with the neighbored at 2415 to plant plants or trees at the site next to their site. i installed story poles at the neighbor's request to show the addition. i met with the supervisor kathrin stefani. she requested multiple times for mr. kaufman to attend a settlement meeting. he refused. instead he used his time and money to file a lawsuit against the city. he met with two cow hollow homeowners association members -- i've met with two cow hollow homeowners association members, which was extremely positive. the rear addition roof line has been completely changed to a pitch roof in lieu of a flat roof for capability with adjacent buildings in cow hollow guidelines. i've reduced the size of windows on the front and rear facades to ensure capability with adjacent homes. as a matter of law, this project is categorically exempt under ceqa. due to improper political pressure, the planning commission rescinded their cadx. today, i've spent over $1,000,003 years on t $1,000,0 $1,000,0 million and approximately three years to get a permit, which is unreasonable. a huge benefit is we're adding an a.d.u. on the ground floor, something else no one else has been willing to do in this neighborhood. i believe this commission would be the first to approve an a.d.u. in cow hollow and the existing heights. the addition allows for three bedrooms on one floor, which is extremely important for little kids. when completed, the new rear addition will be 21 feet shorter than the appellant, mr. kaufman's house. his home is over 85 feet long and three stories tall, which has a significant impact to the neighborhood open space as well as shade, shadow, and air impacts to my property. while driving around pacific heights, it seems that almost every home is under construction. every home in front of you have all been categorically exempt from ceqa and allowed to proceed. this commission has recently approved much larger projects in the neighborhood. there's a 10,000 square foot house on this block and another 16,000 square foot house one block away for sale for $27 million. the comments from the appellant's attorney about floor area ratio being 1 are absolutely incorrect. this project is not out of scale or extraordinary for the neighborhood. there's nothing extraordinary but the political influence. i ask the commission to approve this project with no changes. it has already been in front of a ceqa judge, and the complaint by the appellant was thrown out. please allow this project to proceed as all others as have before it. thank you. you'll hear from the project architect. >> good evening. eric domican, domican mosey architects. exceptional and extraordinary circumstances have been defiant as complex topography, unusual context or other circumstances not addressed in design standards. in my experience, there's nothing exceptional or extraordinary, and there are no unusual circumstances relative to the site property adjacent context or proposed project. in fact, the scope and scale of the project is relatively modest by cow hollow pacific heights standards with typical sites and standards characteristics also very similar to much of cow hollow pacific heights neighborhoods. it's an up sloping site with also a cross slope. there's a historic resource directly adjacent. the project is located within the maher zone. all typical characteristics to projects in this site. relative to the proposed project, the rear addition is modest in size with only approximately 880 square feet spread across floors one, two, three, and four, and the new a.d.u. of approximately 1,000 square feet has been created at the first-floor level. approximately 780 square feet of garage expansion that includes two-car parking, storage, laundry, an elevator, stair at the basement level. the garage expansion, associated excavation has upheld the neighboring property line. with regard to the midblock open space, the proposed rear addition balances the rear walls of the two adjacent properties and does not extend as deep into the midblock open space as any of the homes to the west of the property on that block. there is no impact to the midblock open space. wi with -- which includes side yard set backs, and roof shaping to lessen impacts to adjacent properties. all of these techniques have been incorporated into the -- [please stand by]. >> each and every allegation by the pmnd appellant and those concerns you will hear from neighbors, which they understandably would express with a project like this, have been addressed. those impacts concerning historic resources, hazardous materials, and geology, all have been addressed by staff in compliance with the law. most importantly, we want to make the important point to the commission that this project will be subject to significant additional review and analysis by city experts. this project, three years old now, is only at the beginning of the city review process. we ask that you let us proceed with that process. thank you. we're available for any questions. we have one more speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is pat buskovich. i'm a licensed civil structural engineer. i've been practicing 40 years now, which is kind of numb. only work in san francisco, only work on existing buildings. in a ten-block radius of this site, i've probably done 100 projects. this is a straightforward project. this is not a difficult site for foundation work. this is very straightforward, good geotechnical site to do the work. i've discussed this site with the project sponsor. every question that i asked him, he impressed me with the answer. the final question about vibration issues, he said he brought in salter. that's a name when you mention it, he knows what he's doing here. thank you very much, commissioners. >> president melgar: okay. you still have two minutes on the clock. are you done? okay. we will now take public comment. i have several speaker cards. barbara heffernan. ben heffernan, i have both speaker cards. paul grimaldi, peter kaufman, philip kaufman. you're the owner of the property. you get an opportunity to speak at rebuttal. howard epstein, robert funston, and robert lozano. >> clerk: just to be clear, any party that's a party with the d.r. requesters or mitigated negative declaration cannot speak during this period. this is intended purely for members of the public. >> president melgar: so is that clear? this is for members of the public, people who are not d.r. requesters, but you will get an opportunity to speak after this. go ahead. >> good evening. my name is dan heffernan. we are uphill from the coxhead house. all we got was 2 feet, and we went through 18 months of -- i didn't think we were going to defend it, but the cow hollow guidelines, which we took very seriously, and we're very pleased that we did. that's my first point, that we've done this, and the design guidelines are very important, particularly when i think back to this earlier this afternoon, when you were talking about changing things to improve quality. here, we're just asking you to keep things the way they are. we've got a quality neighborhood with quality green space, and then, they take it -- we take it very importantly, and we're saying just enforce it. this is what it needs. phil kaufman, i will speak to the character, as if he needs it. phil kaufman has been addres d addressing this and been concerned about it. this house is becoming derelict, and flipping it and getting as much square footage as you can. it's not about the neighborhood at all, and thanks so much for listening. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul wermer, and i'm simply an interested resident and in particular with respect to projects on historic preservation and land use. i have two comments. one relates to the depth of the house. there's this principle of rear yard averaging, but that gets really wonky in a case like this, where one lot is so much deeper than the lot that's being averaged. i think that's a problem that's not been acknowledged by the sponsor. the second comment i'd like to make relates to the historic character of the coxhead house. there was a lot of discussion about light and air and views, and the comment that light and air are not protected. and i fully understand and agree that that's correct when you are talking about the usual circumstance. but we are not talking about the usual circumstance here. we're talking about a coxhead house, and one of the things coxhead did was to play with solid walls on parts of the building and windows on parts of the building to make use of that light. and so the historic character and example of that historic character clearly is going to depend on divisability of those windows, the early windows on this block. so this is not a normal air and light situation. this is one where the building was specifically designed with purpose and access. it talks to the design intent and design characteristics that makes coxhead such a significant architect. and i believe that requires more deference, and it disturbs me that i have not heard that addressed in the pmnd as a historic character issue. it's not just the views out, it is how the light comes into the house and plays with the interior design, which was a very purposeful part of the architecture. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> honorable commissioners, my father -- >> president melgar: i think you are -- you're part of mr. kaufman's team. >> yeah, so i can't speak. >> president melgar: yeah. you can speak during rebuttal. >> he's mr. kaufman's son, but he does not live at the property. therefore, he's a member of the public living at a separate address. >> president melgar: city attorney, what do you think? [inaudible] >> president melgar: okay. so it's within my discretion. you may provide public comment as long as it's not part of something that is an argument of the project requester -- the d.r. requester. >> okay. thank you. thank you, commissioners. honorable commissioners, my father's lived at 2421 green street for almost 30 years. during that time, many neighbors have remodelled their homes consistent with the cow hollow guidelines, and none of these projects ever drew an objection from any neighbor. 2417 green, directly downhill from 2421 green, was purchased by mr. durkin who ignored the entire neighborhood's serious concerns at the meeting. it egregiously fails to acknowledge the house's need for light and air, blocking 24 windows, and it produces massing radically out of scale with the neighborhood. this is not a modest plan. two years ago, the board of supervisors twice voted unanimously, 11-0 both times, for ceqa, recognizing that the developer's project could cause significant adverse impact and irreparable damage. since then, he has illegally ripped out two chimneys during the rainy season and left holes, causing mold and rodent infestation. please don't be fooled by his false assertions of innocence. the pmnd states the dangers of this project. the proposed project could directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death. this morning, planning staff's recommendation, you can't fix it when it's too late. think about millennium tower. this is not a risk that you would want to take yourself. as our neighbors have pointed out, the developer's conduct makes it hard to trust he would proceed cautiously and follow the limitations of the permits. remember, commissioners, in november 2018, you voted 6-0 against the same mr. durkin in the case of francis ryan, there's a pattern of threatening, bullying, and illegal behavior. mr. ryan is here today. here's dave ryan. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. kaufman. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, my name is francis ryan, francis dave ryan. you probably know me as dave ryan. i am a homeowner adjacent to one of his other homes on ashbury street. my purpose here is to support the appeal and underscore the points made by mr. drury in his january 7 letter to you. you may recall the developer has come before the planning commission to argue that i should be required to conduct a ceqa review for my teeny roof deck on top of my garage, roughly 500 square feet. the developer has been remarkably inconsistent, proposing to litigate. surely, the developer should be required to conduct the same ceqa or, at your discretion, e.i.r. or analysis that he has ordered should be required by me. dr. lawrence karp comments, and he's suing recognition by the pmnd, that the construction could compromise the integrity of the foundation of the historic location located at 2421. to me, this is -- it's -- we must, particularly -- i urge you to consider particularly the fragility of the adjacent irreplaceable historic adjacent properties on green street. the developer's already demonstrated complete disregard for our concern in the ashbury heights neighborhood, and his actions on green demonstrate the same continuing trend with n.o.v.s, not just on green street, but on ashbury, too. i put it to you, the developer is not a credible individual. the developer has refused to this day to provide any monitoring data on the project adjacent. my opinion is that this is a very high-risk project which requires a full and very detailed study at your discretion, e.i.r., ceqa, whatever it takes. i ask you, the planning commission, to uphold him to the same standards that he's so eager to apply elsewhere. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. so i'm sorry sir. are you part of the d.r. requester? >> i'm sorry. >> president melgar: are you a d.r. requester? >> am i what? >> president melgar: did you ask us to review the project? >> i filled out a speaker card this morning -- or this afternoon. >> president melgar: i understand that, but are you one of the property owners next to -- you're the engineer. you're the engineer for the d.r. requester? are you part of the team? mr. drury, at the part of your team? [inaudible] >> president melgar: okay. so he cannot speak right now. his opportunity was at the beginning, when you presented. you also get a rebuttal, during which he can speak if there's points that haven't been covered, but he cannot speak during public comment. >> clerk: two minutes for each d.r. requester. >> president melgar: okay. come on up, please. >> paul grimaldi, 35-year small business owner in san francisco. to be a successful small business owner in approximat c have to have problem solving skills, and you also have to have good judgment. and what i'm constantly doing is weighing risk versus reward. from what i know about this situation, it seems to me that the risk far outweighs the reward. you know, there's compromising the foundation possibility, liq liquefaction of soil, danger to life according to the report. i know you're all busy, but if you've been to the site to look at it, it's hard to tell from a photo, and it says 24%. but it is severe slope, and those building are right together. and as i tell my teenage son, whenever you get people involved, things can get screwed up. so what if there's some sort of mistake or problem or whatever, and the -- mr. kaufman's foundation begins to have a problem? well, the builder said, well, we'll stop -- we'll stop work. okay. as h.r.halderman famously said during the watergate era, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. my question is, is the city willing to take that risk? i know there are rules, regulations, guidelines, laws, but also, what about the law of common decency? now here's mr. kaufman, living in this neighborhood for 30 years, going about his business, not bothering anybody, and someone comes along and dumps a whole bunch of worry and potential problem -- and problems in his lap. he didn't do anything. he's just living his life. don't you hate that? now he's got to spend, you know, all of his time and money just trying to get his normal life back. and blocking someone's light and view and air and everything, again, what about the law of common decency? and finally, aren't we tired yet of real estate builder bullies? >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name's howard epstein. i came here to speak today in favor of approval of the project at 2417 green. mr. durkin has been the subject of a vicious hit campaign. the transparency is not there. his neighbor at 2415 green, who had a statement read on their behalf that they do everything by the book and everything by permit just recently in fact, about eight months ago, had a notice of violation, 201541931 for replacement of their stairs without a permit. mr. ryan has been performing illegal work for 15 years, and his couple of planks is actually an illegal roof deck, an illegal walk away from his garage roof, nothing which seems to matter except when it comes to chris. i have seen the quality of the work that chris does. it is extraordinary. he puts most builders to shame. he is not a house flipper. he has spent years tackling projects to be beautiful, special, and functional to families. all of his work has been planning and building compliant, and he is not encroaching on anybody else's property as some people have said. this project has not evicted a tenant. this project is not by affordable house standards. it's an a.d.u., and it's in writing for everyone to see. i challenge anyone in this neighborhood to show me their plans for an a.d.u. to help housing in this city. this project will take a tired old house and make it family friendly with a rental use. chris has patiently waited 2.5 years to get here today. to be continued nine times at the request of one individual who can wield so much power and so much political clout, it's embarrassing. and i know that this commission isn't going to stand for this anymore. his neighbors are refusing to meet with him, talk to him, and they're just talking about the problems. i strongly request you approve this project as proposed. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> my name is robert funston, and i'm a real estate broker and investor in san francisco for the past ten years. i live in the neighborhood, as well. people have characterized chris durkin, who i've known for almost ten years now, as not the greatest person, a bad, you know, evil developer. the law of common decency? chris is not a decent person. i just don't understand it. he owns the house. he has the right to build a house up to code. i mean, a derelict structure? he hasn't gotten a hearing in three years, three years. i wonder why the property's -- you know, it doesn't make any sense. why is the property going downhill? because he can't get his permits. that's all i have to say. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commission president and commissioners. my name is robert lozara. since 1981, i have managed the orpheum since 1986. it did not meet the fate of our sister theater two blocks away, the fox theater. this treasure was demolished in 1963. no one prevented its loss. tonight, i speak for two other treasures. film maker philip kaufman and his coxhead home on green street. many of his movies were born, nurtured and written in his green street home. what you can't see, is this edifice is built like a tree house, with soaring staircases and windows that flood the home with light. it is a breathtaking cathedral of creative inspiration for those lucky enough to live there. i think one of the single greatest scenes in all movie history was filmed just outside of san francisco city hall, in inkaufman's invasion of the body snatchers, there is a terrifying and incomparable image of a dog with a man's face, squealing and licking his chops. this scene is truly amazing. if this shrine to film making on green street goes away, who knows what other scenes will never see the light of a movie screen. i hope all parties will make the right decision. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> my name's christine pelosi. i actually had the last law and motion case in this building when i was a deputy city attorney on the building mitigation team. my very first case as a deputy city attorney was the case that went down the hall on alta street where there was a home that was not done to code, and people said that's okay, we'll justificati just fix it as we go along. i began my career in this building talking with unstable housing, and here i am today as the mother of bella, and the daughter-in-law of philip, the owner of the house. when i see 2421 green street, i look at it as a place where my late mother-in-law, rose, was nurturing in the back yard, where phil and peter write their scripts, where okaytacta and bella have their own rooms. when you have 127--year-old house, you are supposed to follow ceqa. where you have experts on both sides who are in disagreement, as i think we would all stipulate you have today, they're supposed to invoke an independent review. and if any situation called out for an independent review, it would be this situation. so ceqa tells us what to do. the board of supervisors told us what to do twice. i think that everybody's tired of coming before bodies in city hall, asking for relief. what we need is independent review. finally, i would just note that when it comes to the soil samples taken from the garage and not the deep part of the soil that is at issue, i think it's important to look at all of the reports, again, with an independent eye and say how can you build within the envelope, how can you build a single-family home? that is what i'm asking you to do both as an attorney and as a family member. i think independent review and ceqa are what is needed here. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. do we have any other public comment on this item? okay. then public comment is now closed. we will now have time for rebuttal. you get two minutes per d.r. requester. so i, you know, don't know if you want to share those minutes or if you have further rebuttal. >> yeah. could i just ask a procedural question before we start running the clock? >> president melgar: sure. >> i was not aware that my expert, mr. karp, and owner, mr. kaufman, were supposed to speak during the presentation. will there be rebuttal for the ceqa issue as well as the d.r.? >> clerk: there will be no rebuttal for the ceqa issue. this is solely for the d.r.s. >> i think it would be a travesty if mr. karp and mr. kaufman would not be able to speak. we're willing to cede our time so that they can be allowed to speak. >> president melgar: i will do this. i will give you 30 seconds to talk amongst yourselves to figure out who will speak, and you can share the six minutes of rebuttal or distribute it amongst yourselves, but you only get six minutes. >> yes. i would propose that three minutes be afforded to -- >> president melgar: right, but they have to agree. >> we've been chatting. >> president melgar: all right. >> so i propose that dr. karp speak for six minutes and mr. kaufman for three. >> clerk: six minutes altogether. >> president melgar: okay. great. thank you. mr. karp? >> dr. karp. >> president melgar: dr. karp. >> i am lawrence karp, and here to address issues on the 2417 green street project. i represent the coxhead house owners. i am an engineer working with shorington underpinning since the late 1950's. the issues have not been addressed in the mitigated negative declaration because there were no qualified individuals to do so. planning had elected internally not to seek a proper review inherent in an environmental impact report, which the supervisors had intended. there is no counterpart to the architect in planning. one years ago today, the -- one year ago today, the board of supervisors rejected the project to planning. [inaudible] >> -- until they were suspended by d.b.i. an e.i.r. was intended. the debate at the board centered on the failure of the project to follow the city's slope protection act provisions were not followed. although the project is clearly marked in a land slide area abutted by lion, greta, vanness, in cow hollow heights. this has been part of the city's building code since 1976, and the city's land slide plan and seismic areas are now part of maps and other updated are areas are in exhibit e. it's part of the city ordinance 121-18. so what happened when planning got the return? they snapped into action by asking the city what to do. it's simple. ask the spna for clarification. they're going to add a consultant who has experience with slope failure in san francisco. personal experience, no less. the consultant who has now cosigned the revised report, eliminating the slope protection act entirely has also written the review for shoring murphy's house at 125 crown terrace shortly before it crashed down the hill. that's exhibit f, the reports and the pictures. >> clerk: sir. i don't know if you want to cede three minutes to mr. kaufman, but if you do, i would stop talking. >> i'll stop talking. >> president melgar: thank you. >> thank you. philip kaufman. i'm going to put some exhibits down here of the books. but what a load of crap that was by mr. durkin. what baloney he's speaking out. we all met with him at the pre-app, our entire neighborhood. we asked him in every nice way, we said we want to be your neighbors. we have never objected to any neighbor developing, in the 30 years that i've been there, doing whatever they needed to do to the project. he brushed us off and said, i'm going to do whatever i want. the meeting broke up. there -- everybody was there, including attorney scott emblage. he brushed us off and said he'd do whatever he wanted. later, he had some plans he would not show to us, made us go to the zack's office. he would not give us the plans. there were three or four different plans. it cost a great deal of money to go there. he was not cooperative in any way, and our neighbors at the downhill slope, the lamphart-birds are furious with him, and his garage is nothing like the deal. it was right off street level, it was nothing like this. he claims in his -- the document which planning quotes, that the houses are in capital letters, in no way bonded. it's baloney. our houses have been bonded together in many places for over 100 years. he also -- you know, he talks like he's an innocent guy. we've heard about dave ryan and how he tried to use ceqa to overwhelm him with his high -- if you look back at your own decision, his high-priced lawyers against an individual trying to defend himself against mr. durkin. he's a very aggressive -- he plays like he's a sweetie pie, but he's a very difficult, aggressive guy, who has a whole history of this. he also has partners who he's not mentioning here who have knocked on our door. he has -- this is a group of people who he claims he's going to live there. it's -- i mean, it's something like i just -- i have a whole prepared speech, but i'm so angry to hear all these falsehoods that you're supposed to be taking as factual. >> president melgar: i'm sorry, mr. kaufman. you've used up the three minutes. >> clerk: that's your time. >> okay. i'm sorry. i wasn't sure that that's -- i thought in rebuttal, because he was able to speak for so long, that maybe -- and with so many false facts, that there would be some way of answering that and giving you -- >> president melgar: this was your chance, and we may have questions for you. >> that would be great. >> president melgar: we have not started our deliberations. >> that would be great. i'm happy to answer your questions. this was not rational, and when i heard that, springs came out of my head. >> president melgar: and the project sponsor also does get a rebuttal. >> hello, again, commissioners. i'm just goingco

Related Keywords

North Beach , California , United States , Chicago , Illinois , London , City Of , United Kingdom , San Francisco City Hall , San Francisco , Christine Pelosi , Ernest Cox , Paul Grimaldi , Phil Kaufman , Dan Heffernan , Peter Kaufman , Lawrence Karp , Robert Lozano , Francis Ryan , Carol Karp , Dave Ryan , Brian Springfield , Stephen Cornell , Barbara Heffernan Ben , Matthew Hagerman , Robert Funston , Cory Smith , Philip Kaufman , Louise Beja , Chris Durkin , Howard Epstein ,