Approval of demolition and replacement. The project was before the Planning Commission because 317 requires conditional approval for demolition. Joe purchased the house in 2015 from the estate of the former owner, who owneroccupied until his death in 2014. Its been vacant since of the Planning Commission found that there was all the relevant data. It is not subject to rent control and no tenants were or are being replaced. It replaces one unit with three and three bedrooms with eight bedrooms. It closely conforms to rm1 zoning and the period urban design. Appellants did not oppose demolition at the Planning Commission or here. They presented no evidence that the Planning Commission approved its description in approving demolition. What appellants are seeking is removal of the 4th floor, which would eliminate a familysize limit in violation of the housing act and the owners plan. They got everything they asked for except that 4th floor being eliminated. The Planning Department realized that would eliminate one of the units. They never presented with a plan that shows how three familysized units could be accommodated in three floors. The only way is to eliminate the garage. One to one parking is required in this district. Every other building has ground floor parking and living above. The california legislatures strength of the housing account and the act. It prohibits city to reduce the projects that meet the density code. Appellants have presented no evidence that removal of the fourth floor is necessary to avoid Public Health and safety. The board is constrained by state law from ordering what appellants request. They made two requests. First, we agreed to white paint or lightcolored finish. And, second, we can confirm there are no side yard decks on the plans now. Let me know introduce michael levitt, project plans and shadow studies. Before doing so, i would like to submit a total of 56 letters of support from Richmond District and citywide. I have those letters here. Thank you. Well collect those. Good afternoon. Im michael levitt, levitt architecture. Picking up where steve left off regarding neighborhood context, please take a look at this analysis of the immediate area surrounding the project. This is in your packets as well on page 7. Our project has been described as massive, monolithic and out of character with its neighbors as an anomaly in an area dominated by smaller buildings. The facts dont bear this out. The diagram indicates in red the 4th stories of a large number of existing buildings in both the contiguous and surrounding blocks. The vast majority of these buildings contain four stories that represent 100 of their overall footprints with no setbacks at all. The appellants 2story building is indicated in yellow and you can see theres a partial 4th floor on the building next door to his building to the east. To the west, the corner building at lake and 27th avenue is 3 stories. But as steve mentioned, its capped by a roof ands that large floortofloor heights bringing the Building Height up to 37 feet. This is 3 feet below our proposed roof line. This is not atypical at all for the block, as many older buildings of 3 stories are in the range of 35 to 37 feet. A proposed 4th level is shown in blue behind the appellants building, which is in yellow. And this represents just over half the area of our building footprint after taking away all of our side and front and rear setbacks. If you look at the diagram to the right, i think it becomes readily apparent that the 4story buildings in this area are not the anomaly, but 2story are. Its one of the few singlefamily residents in rm1, which is defined as multiFamily Housing of the height diagram that they had shown included a portion of an adjacent Zoning District with lower density that indicated a lot of 2story houses, which are not in the same Zoning District where the project is. This slide indicates the project and some of the materials involved. And i think its apparent to someone looking at our proposal objectively that the building feels appropriate in this setting. The street facade is consciously restrained, working towards being a good neighbor, not architectural object. This formal restraint will be enlivened three our use of materials and attention to detail. Limestone will be used to clad the majority of the building, switching at the 4th floor to deep stained wood siding that will separate it from the floors below. Viewed from the north, our facade follows the height created by a series of 3story buildings to our south, whileal awe allowing the corner building at 37 feet to project above. From the south, the same holds true and the significant 15foot setback at the fourth floor is obscured from view. In fact, our roof height is 7 feet above the height of our building facade. We have partnered with planning staff and the Residential Design Team throughout the past two years responding to their concerns with modifications to the design through a number of iterations. Additionally, weve modified the design as prescribed by the Planning Commission in response to privacy by eliminating a roof deck, adding a privacy screen at the entry, and providing nonoperable, profited glass windows. The appellants raised the issue of the proposed units looking into their windows, the reality is that the existing building has unobstructed views into their yard and windows, which ours will have none of. Many of the modifications centered on lessening the shadow impacts to the neighbors to the north, buildings on lake street, with a viable design that would provide space for three families. The area indicated in yellow represents our proposed fourth floor. This is the living, dining and kitchen spaces 1 one of the units. The level below, part of the same unit, contains the three bedrooms and bathrooms. This fourth level will be set insignificantly from the overall footprint with setbacks at front and rear, as well as the north property line. The decks weve provided are a result of the setbacks. As indicated on the drawing, this represents just 58 of the overall building footprint and is the result of extensive shadow studies weve done during the design process. These shadow studies, which are in the back section of your packets, look at shadows created during the summer and winter solstices and spring and fall equinox. They look at the impacts in 2hour intervals throughout the day from 8 00 a. M. Until 6 00 p. M. Importantly, they also compare the existing shadow conditions with the future conditions. This comparison was omitted in the appellants limited shadow study presented to the Planning Commission. Interestingly, weve heard a lot about the devastating shadows we will be causing, yet the appellants have not presented any evidence of those claims. Taking the existing shadows conditions into condition, change the the reality of the shadow impact dramatically, since the majority of the shadowing is caused not by our building, but the appellants two adjacent neighbors on lake street. I can go through a few of the images now and i would urge you to take a few minutes to study them and draw your own conclusions. As you can see, the slide which is currently up, which is the equinox, its arranged so that the existing condition is above with our proposed condition below. You can see this going through all the slides. Theres basically full sun on the appellants home throughout the day, noon, 2 00 p. M. , 4 00 p. M. And 6 00 p. M. And you can see the shadows being caused are existing in the existing conditions as well as below. It hasnt changed. Some of these effects are predictably felt near the winter solstice, but even at this time the difference between what the appellant is requesting at a 30foot height and 40foot is negligible as indicated on their own study if it was examined closely. At other times, shadowing is minor at best with no loss of sunlight. Thank you, mr. Levitt. That concludes the project sponsors testimony. Now well good go to 2 minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. If you will line up to my left, your right. First speaker, please. I would like to start by offering our condolences to everybody in the room and to the board for the mayor. Its a sad day in San Francisco, i think. I would like to start by asking everybody in the room who is of the belief that three Housing Units is better in terms of helping to mitigate Affordable Housing and is an opponent of 218 27th avenue to please stand in show of your support. Im joey tavone. We have no stake or equity in this project. I am a native of the Richmond District, as is my wife, and are our two daughters, born to our rented apartment in the Richmond District. What i do have a stake in is the richmond and in San Francisco. My wife and i constantly have conversations about how we wish we had a little bit more space. Little bit more light, little more privacy, but those conversations, i think, are tailored with the awareness and the recognition that we chose to live in a highly dense part of San Francisco. And light and privacy in San Franciscos great neighborhoods are a luxury, not a given. So i would ask the board or request that you analyze this case not through the lens of a singlefamily home ener and some neighborhoods that hes galvanized, but instead, look at this appeal and this case within the greater backdrop and within the context of the Affordable Housing crisis, because i think a decision to lop off a floor and take a unit will set a precedent that will echo far beyond this chamber. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Antonini. Thank you very much. Michael antonini speaking in opposition to the appeal and favor of the project at 218 27th avenue, but would i like to begin by expressing my condolences particularly to anita, breanna and tanya lee for the loss of their father and husband, wonderful mayor, ed lee. I want to go on about the project, which i feel is one of the best ive seen during my period of time looking at these projects, which now is in its 15th year, very contextually , the limestone, dark wood, and designed with three townhouses, which are perfect for Family Living because having children and new grandchildren, its nice to have the extra floor so people who may be sleeping are not exposed to all the activities and these can be done on a small scale or a large scale, as has cleverly been done in this project. I visited the project on december 7 and spent about an hour out on lake street looking at the sun, particularly to see how it would how it was impacted by the 4story buildings or large 3story buildings. The sun even at this late date in the year was still above the 4story buildings. So the amount of impact that list will have, has brought forth will be minimal, even around the shortest day of the year. So im speaking in favor of the project and all the things that ive done to accommodate as well as opaquing the windows, taking off the roof deck, setback 15 feet. Its a wellcrafted project, crafted with the help of the Planning Commission into something that we can be proud of, three very fine units and im totally in support. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Antonini. Next speaker, please. Shavon with Residential Builders association. I will keep my comments short due to the events of the past 24 hours. I want to voice my support for this project thats withbeen supported by the Planning Commission. For a project designed to live up to everything asked of developers, which is three things density maximum, density equity and no sham units, this is a great example of a project that is what theyve been asked for. For a developer thats gone through the process lengthy, followed the rules and cooperated, i want to support as much Family Housing as possible, which is three large units on this site. Thank you. Thank you. If there are any speakers in opposition to the appeal, please come up. Im navine, Residential Builders association. Given the circumstances of today, i will keep my comments short. Im here in support of the project as designed. And we are in need of more housing in the west side. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Sean tiegren, on a weird day here today. I will just address some of the items that were raised. Windows, its been established. They will be nonoperable windows and obscure glass. Privacy from the decks. Its been established that the decks have been removed at the Planning Commission. The tree, project sponsor has agreed to an arborist. Theyve agreed to white or beige siding on the side portion and shadow. Look at an aerial shot of that site. Theres a very, very large, if not a couple of large trees with large can business and buildings next to it. If shadow alone is going to be a reason to knock off a floor, we will never, ever be able to build any housing in San Francisco. This produces Family Housing. After hearing the same arguments at the Planning Commission, they voted 60 to approve because we need units, new housing, on the west side. In closing, supervisors, id like to address what is really going on here. We need to end or at least modify what i call the west side double standard. On the east side, we have eastern neighborhoods, western soma, 3rd street corridor, hunters point, Treasure Island and i can go on and on. Sacrifices have been made around density, height, privacy, and massing. Im not suggesting that we upzone this block or this neighborhood to 50, 80 or 100 feet, but we have to hold them accountable to the existing height. Thank you for your testimony. Seeing no other speakers in opposition to appeal, well go to a not to exceed 5minute reboutte albie rebuttal by appellant or appellant representative. The floor is yours, not to exceed 5 minutes. Its not the 3story, its the part and parcel. Were not asking for density reduction. Just a bedroom. A 3bedroom unit is not unreasonable. Shadow studies were generated that showed impact. Where increased shadow impact is minimal. If we can get the overhead back on, please. Not the computer, the overhead. 40 feet is permitted, but that doesnt mean it should be granted. The pattern of transition from 4 to 3 to 2 is clear. This is not about what zoning we live in. Were at an edge and we need to be cognizant of that. The photos they showed are from the next block over and are cropped in an advantagous matter. The mitigations imposed were not a gift. They were recognitions that the design has oversights and not considered it properly. Design is objective. Although it may conform to the zoning units, not to the constraints. We need to are consider this project. Reconsider this project. You are yielding the rest of your time . Go ahead, maam. I want to talk about the ceqa prose process. What you have heard is that they were not complied with. They were or were not. They were not complied with. The fact that mr. Bernstein attended the hearing, the fact that he had notice of the notice of categorical exemption determination does not mean that there is no harm or as the project sponsors representative indicated no prejudice. We submit there was prejudice. If he had noticed that a categorical exemption determination had been issued for an approval action that was a conditional use authorization right next door to his property in july of 2016 when that determination was issued as opposed to six days before the hearing, he certainly would have had the opportunity that was intended under ceqa. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So that concludes the rebuttal. The hearing is conducted. Colleagues items 30 and 34 are held and closed. Supervisor farrell, as district supervisor, do you have opening remarks, questions or comments . Councillor farrell colleagues, a few comments, and i will be brief. So just to frame the project before us. We have a demolition of a vacant singlefamily home to replace it with three units of familysized housing. Also in a neighborhood that doesnt see housing built very frequently that was now unanimously approved by the Planning Commission with obviously a number of conditions, that were mentioned. We want to talk about the ceqa. Its a small, infill project, exactly what class 1 and 3 exemptions are for. My staff has had conversations with the appellants and their representatives. They field a ceqa appeal because it was an available path. We see this a decent amount here, but not reason to support it. On the cu, appreciate the neighbors filing this. It raises a different set of issues about the project itself. A few to talk about briefly. Privacy concerns, that many of us have living in a dense city. I agree with removing the roof deck, the frosting, and planning staff mentioned a bunch of other conditions that were included as part of the approval. I support those and understand why they went in. The appellant had raised some concerns about the legality of demolishing a singlefamily home. The home was owneroccupied at the time he passed away and has been unoccupied since. The Sticking Point ultimately is around the height. Appellant is opposing a 40foot building which is within the zoning guidelines. Its in district 2. I know the neighborhood well. Its reasonable for the area. There are a number of houses and apartment buildings that are of similar scale in the neighborhood. It meets zoning. Went through design and review. Scaled back by Planning Commission and if we will stop that from existing neighborhoods, we will just cause the lack of housing. If those projects cant get approved, well exacerbate the issue. As neighbors and was mentioned about the west side, we have to come together and take our fair share. At the end of the day to demolish a single home to