Improvement on the housing shortage in San Francisco. I believe that what we need is more affordable rental housing, more than luxury housing. In any event, more modestly sized structure would be a great improvement for the other residents in the neighborhood. Finally, i just ask the board to please consider the potential negative impacts on quality of life that the development as proposed will have on the neighbors. Thank you. Councillor breed thank you for your comments. Knee. Speaker, please . Hello. Im john mulligan, owner of 210 27th avenue. Youve heard it all already. The building is too high and the air and light. My tenants, its rentcontrolled, many are distraught about this and they cant afford to move. You really have to take a look at this about the people its affecting, not the greedy developers. Thank you. Councillor breed thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Sophie stevenson and i live at 210 27th avenue. And im very concerned about the lack of light that ill be having in my apartment if this is built. I have one window that allows direct sunlight and a lot of Natural Light and it will be blocked if the building goes forward as proposed. Thank you. Councillor breed thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is diane youngerrossi. I live at 291 lake street. Were next door to sonya and alex and our building will also be completely all the light will be obliterated by a 40foot wall. So close and so tall, so were asking for your consideration, please, to just take 10 feet off the building and allow a more modestlysized building to be built there. Thank you. Councillor breed thank you. Next speaker, please . Madam president , supervisors, im ray weeland. Ive lived on lake street now for about 15 years. I moved there because of its charm. Unfortunately, over the past 15 years, theres been some monstrosities built in the neighborhood, and i believe this to be one of them, 218 27th avenue. I have been in alex and sonyas house, the house in question, and it is quite evident when you look up and see the existing 30 31foot building that anything higher will obliterate whatever light there is. So im here to voice my objection and hope you will not let this go forward. Im john deforest. I live at 2535 lake, almost directly across from the bernsteins. And oppose this proposed building in its current state for all the reasons that have been adduced and i want to remind you supervisors that if left unchecked real estate interests, and theyre just about the same everywhere i used to live in manhattan. I even lived in greenwich village, which is pretty much destroyed now left unchecked, San Francisco will be even more degraded as a beautiful environment and place to live and raise your children and you are the last line of defense. Thank you. Councillor breed thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is marianne shell and i live at 2539 lake street. Thank you for working today and my condolences to you and the city. Ive lived on lake street since 1992 in a building adjacent to 218 27th avenue. Im a retired San Francisco unified schoolteacher of 35 years. Im very concerned about the proposed construction at 218 for the following reasons. The new building is out of scale with the surrounding buildings and would greatly reduce the sunlight that enters my southfacing windows. The new building at a height of 40 feet with intrusive decks will block the light into my living room and bedroom making them dark and dreary. Im a cancer patient on maintenance chemotherapy and i worry that the hours, noise and dirt of construction will cause added stress on my body. I require extra sleep in a calm, peaceful environment to try to maintain my health. I hope the supervisors will reduce construction hours, perhaps 9 00 to 5 00 and not allow work on weekends. My small garden is a refuge for me and will cover from the construction and later will be in complete shade. The nearby redwood tree will have to be cut back and damaged. I will use airflow and quality of life and my health may suffer as a result. Im not alone in thinking this. 63 of my neighborhoods agree with me. Thank you for your consideration. Councillor breed thank you for your comments. Before the next speaker, are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on behalf of the appellant . Please come to the left side your righthand side of the chamber. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good evening, board of supervisors. Im david john and im a San Francisco resident and i definitely oppose the height of this project for various reasons. And also being part of the Building Trades community, we dont want to support the nonunion builder on this project. My mom had a similar situation in her property in San Francisco and it was very, very distraught for her and had to listen to the fact that she didnt have sunlight and her backyard was completely dark because someone built a big Apartment Building right behind her house. Please dont let this pass. You heard the comments and the concerns of the community, so please, support their wishes. Thank you. Councillor breed thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Knowing that were all children of creator, my condolences regarding the loss of your mayor. Your second speaker, the woman architect, i think from their perspective nailed it pretty good. I would second everything that she said, but i want to give a brief evaluation in my 1 1 2 minutes left. Its surreal that the topic before when i first came here was the homeless issue and how many are homeless and here were taking up an action about who will get shaded out with an extra building and whether theres union labor or not. Its so different, but were all connected and i want to invite you to something really wonderful. In front of me, the most beautiful thing, the 40day prophetic general strike that brings us into the promised land. Oakland is on its way. How many people in this chamber have not at least four or five reasons to shut down the system . These are mostly pretty good people, but most of them are not really familiar with agenda 21, which also impacts their decisions on everything that they do. And agenda 21 directed Energy Weapons started fires in Northern California and southern california. And i have proof right here to anybody that wants a copy. But to those that are trying to do the right thing, the homeless issue will never be resolved until we do unto others, meaning the animals, and we cease having a city with blood flowing out of the restaurants. Its just not necessary and were better than that and its time for us to take that step forward. Its about power and its about love. So i invite the laborers and workers to join the strike, to shut down the corruption, to find a place for the homeless councillor breed thank you for your comments. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak in support of the appeal . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. We will now hear a presentation from the city departments. You will have up to 15 minutes and then well go to the project sponsor. Good afternoon. Im joined by laura ayello, lead planner for the project at 218 27th avenue. The matter before you is to either affirm or amend or reverse the conditional use authorization. The proposed project is in the Richmond District on the east side of 27th avenue south of lake street. The project includes demolition of an existing 2story, singlefami singlefami singlefamily residence and 4story, multifamily unit. We issued a class 1 and 3 categoric exemption. The project for conditional use for planning code, after careful consideration, the proposed project and concerns of the neighbors, which included the concerns raised by the appellant. The Planning Commission found that the proposed 3unit, 4story development is necessary and desirable. In response to the neighbors concerns, we modified the project, which will be covered in ms. Ayellos presentation. We are recommended that you uphold it as is. And with that, Jenny Pauling will be next and then followed by ms. Ayello good afternoon, members of the board. Im jeany pauling, environmental planner. The departments responses to the issues can be grouped into two categories procedural and substantive. The first that the Planning Department didnt comply with the posting required in chapter 31 of the administrative code because incorrect approval action was listed. Chapter 31 does require that the approval action be listed and the appellant is correct, that building correct was listed when it should have been listed Planning Commission hearing. This was a procedural oversight. However, the agenda item posted on plannings website six days before the hearing correctly stated that the authorization constitutes approval action for the project. The appellant, mr. Bernstein, was clearly aware as he received notice with the appeal information. He attended and spoke at the hearing and he filed the appeal in a timely manner. The hearing language in the notice of the agenda adequately provided information on the appeal process, as required in chapter 31. The second procedural concern relates to notification requirements regarding identification and posting of additional discretionary approvals that are known at the time of issuance of exemption. Not listed, but the executive summary sites demolition site and permits subsequently, so the project was notified. The third contention regarding procedures is that the notice of the public hearing on conditional use authorization does not inform the public of the exemption determination. As explained, the letter does indicate that the project is exempt. The procedural issue raised in the appeal pertains to posting requirements for project modifications. It reads modification of exempt project of section 31 applying to the project. Changes to the project between environmental clearance and project approval are not subject to the posting requirements of section 31. 08i. The remaining issues pertain to substantive matters. First of these is the appellants contention that the project approval cannot require on the categorical exemption because the Product Description changed from the time the exemption was issued and product approved. The product did change during review and approval. During the review for consistency with the planning code and residential Design Guidelines, the project was reduced in size. And the Planning Commission further reduced the size of the project. The minor changes to the project between Environmental Review and project approval do not change the characteristics that qualify for class 1 and 3 exemption or trigger the need for additional Environmental Review. The appellants second contention is that class 1 and 3 categorical exemption is not supported by substantial evidence. Ceqa identifies that which doesnt impact the environment. That falls into class 1 and 3 categories. Guidelines state that the decision as to whether the project has significant effects on the environment must be based on substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is facts, reasonable assumptions, and opinions supported by facts. The appellant has not provided substantial evidence that there are unusual circumstances to counter the determination that the project is exempt. The appellants final contention is that it would result in land use impacts because the project site is a key lot in that its side Property Line abutts the rear line of lots fronting lake. The appellant has not presented substantial evidence to support that there are unusual circumstances relating to shadow, aesthetics and land use. The exemption complies with ceqa and chapter 31 and the project is exempt from Environmental Review. I urge you to uphold the exemption and deny the appeal. This concludes my presentation on the ceqa appeal. And laura ayello will discuss the cu appeal. Good afternoon, members of the board. Laura ayello, planning staff in the current planning division. Im here to discuss the conditional use authorization. I will keep my comments very brief. As you know, you also need to review and decide whether or not to remove or amend the approval to allow the demolition of singlefamily home and replacement with a new structure containing three familysized units. The existing building is not occupied. Its not historic. Its unremarkable in any way except its one of the smallest homes on the block. The appellant believes that the project is out of scale, fails to maintain light to adjacent properties and creates significant, adverse shadow impacts that result in a loss of privacy to the neighboring buildings. In response, 40foothigh residential buildings are permitted in this district, which is residential mixed. Its also permitted in more restrictive residential districts. And can be found throughout the project area, 4story buildings, that is. The subject property is a key lot, so the north side of the building was given extra scrutiny by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. Key lots are not unusual. They can be found on every block. The approved building underwent a lengthy Design Review process that successfully modified the original proposal to comply with the citys residential Design Guidelines and planning code requirements. Appropriate measures were taken in order to preserve privacy, light and air to the Neighboring Properties and those rear yards that abutt the subject property. Additional measures in response to the concerns of the neighbors at the Planning Commission hearing were added as conditions of approval at the public hearing. As a result of the Design Review and the public hearing process, side setbacks were created on the north side. No decks were allowed in the setback areas. A light well was incorporated. Frosted windows were required to be made inoperable. A stair penthouse and large roof deck were eliminated. A visual screen at the front entry was required. The depth of the top floor, front setback was increased. And an arborist was required to protect the health of the trees on abutting properties. Issue two, the appellant claims that the planning code sections 303, 317 and proposition m findings not supported by substantial evidence. The appellant offers no suggestion as to why the evidence discussed at great length in the authorization motion should be considered less than substantial. The findings are accurate or concise, which is appropriate for this smallscale, infill residential development. Findings of consistency require a balancing of policies and a determination of overall consistency to the relevant criter criteria, objections, and policies. This was fund to comply with all requirements and unanimously approved with conditions by the Planning Commission. For these reasons, as well as those made in the Planning Commissions motion, we recommend that the board uphold the commissions decision and deny the appeal. This concludes my presentation. Jeannie and i will be available if you have further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from members . If not, we will go to the project sponsor or representatives not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. Vettle . On behalf of the project sponsor and owner of the small San Francisco group, prides himself with working within the policies. In 40 years as a builder, its the first time that joe has been before the board of supervisors on appeal of one of his projects. First of all, a categorical exemption was proper here. First, the existing house is not an historic research. Appellants concede that point. Second, there are no unusual circumstances with this project. Its a typical infill lot in a developed neighborhood. Every brock in San Francisco has key lots. Even if there was significant circumstances, no evidence has been showed for significant circumstance. Ceqa is concerned with the impacts on public environment, not the private realm. As Jenny Pauling pointed out, the appeal was timely in determination to this board. They were not prejudiced in any way way procedural irregularities. For these reasons, we ask that you affirm the Planning Departments decision to issue the categorical exemption. This is three units which is permitted in this district. Can we have the overhead, the computer screen, please . Its coming. Thank you. The project site is rm1. Thats apartment zoning, not rh, lower density. Up to four units are personal permitted. It proposes three large familysize units to replace one delapidated house. It is consistent with zoning and character of the neighborhood. It is characterized by 3 and 4story Apartment Buildings and the 3story buildings in many cases are more than 30 feet. Singlefamily home is an anomaly. Theres a 9unit building to the west and 6unit to the east. These images on the screen indicate the character of the vicinity. The site is within a 40 site. Unlike rh1 and rh2, which does require lower heights and setbacks at upper stories, rm1 requires no upper story height reductions or setbacks. Nonetheless, the building is sculpted and detailed to conform to the neighborhood character and address appellants concerns. It has a large, codecomplaint rear yard. The first floors are full floor and so is the second. Third and fourth is not, to address light on lake street and appellants house. The Planning Commission ordered even further revisions at appellants request, including removal of roof deck and privacy including nonoperable frosted grass windows and privacy screen. With these modifications added, there is no impact on the privacy to the rear yard of appellants home. This is the sensitively desig