There are 11 ayes. Supervisor breed the ordinance passes on the first reading. The clerk the motion is for the delivery of Software Services and hosting for an electronic record for a tenyear term supervisor breed without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously. Next item. The clerk item 32 a resolution to retroactively to enter into a contract incorporating the Mental Health services act projects for assistance and transition from homelessness and the community Mental HealthServices Grant for the period of july 1, 2017 through june 30, 2018. Supervisor breed without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously. Next item. The clerk item 33 authorizing the department of Public Health to enter an agreement with the California Department of Health Care Services to receive federal draw down funding for children enrolled in the countys Health Initiative program through the Healthy Kids Program in the amount of approximately 9 million for the period of september 30, 2018. Supervisor breed without objection the item passes unanimously. The clerk item 33 is for office space at 1380 Howard Street for the department of publ Public Health and annual rent of 3. 4 million through december 31, 2022. Supervisor breed same call. Without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously. Next item. The clerk item 35 is a resolution to approve and authorize the execution and performance of an agreement of purchase and sale of real estate in connection with the acquisition of the parcel located at 1491 sunny dale avenue. Supervisor bre supervisor bre objection objection passes unanimously. The clerk the next item was considered monday december 4 and forwarded to implement charter section 16. 129 and generally provide the city shall maintain street trees and be liable for Property Damage resulting the failure to maintain street trees and determination. Supervisor breed without objection the ordinance passes unanimously on the first reading. Madame clerk, lets go to the first 3 00 p. M. Special. The clerk a hearing of persons interested in the certification of a conditional use authorization for a proposed project located at 948 through 950 lombard street and 841 Chestnut Street issued by the Planning Commission dated august 31, 2017 to allow two dwelling units on a single lot in the residential house one family district and the haight district under the Environmental Quality action. Item 18 is to at the condition use for this project, item 19 is the motion to conditionally disapprove the commissions decision and appropriation of findings. Supervisor breed we have the appeal for the project at 948 to 950 lombard street and 841 Chestnut Street in direstrict 2. Well determine to approve the conditional use operation to allow a lot merger with a lotline adjustment to allow two dwelling units on the residential house one family Zoning District and 40x height and bulk district for the parcels at 948, 950 lombard and 841 Chestnut Street. The project, without objection we will proceed as follows. Up to ten minutes for the presentation by the appellant or appellant representative and up to two minutes for speaker in support of the appeal and ten minutes for a presentation from the Planning Commission and ten minutes for the project sponsor or representative and ten minutes for opposition and up to three minutes for a rebut rebuttal. Well open up the hearing. Supervisor farrell. Supervisor farrell thank you, this parcel sin district two. Supervisor peskin and i spoke beforehand before bringing the appeal forward and he dealt with signatures we had an interest in so i wanted to and we discussed it beforehand and he wanted to 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 th