my name is dan newman. i've been a resident at 210 27th avenue, the building just north of the proposed development on the corner of 27th avenue and lake. i have lived there for 35 plus years and it's a rent-controlled unit, the one that i live in, so i could not afford to continue living in san francisco if i had to move for any reason for that unit that i live in now. the proposed development at 2 218 27th avenue will reduce the light and air for all buildings and other properties, as you've already heard. the three luxury townhouses that are to be constructed there will not have a significant

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. i'm john mulligan, owner of 210 27th avenue. you've heard it all already. the building is too high and the air and light. my tenants, it's rent-controlled, many are distraught about this and they can't afford to move. you really have to take a look

at this about the people it's 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 i'm very concerned about the lack of light that i'll 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 younger-rossi. i live at 291 lake street. we're next door to sonya and alex and our building will also be completely -- all the light

will be obliterated by a 40-foot wall. so close and so tall, so we're asking for your consideration, please, to just take 10 feet off the building and allow a more modestly-sized building to be built there. thank you. >> councillor breed: thank you. next speaker, please? >> madam president, supervisors, i'm ray weeland. i've lived on lake street now for about 15 years. i moved there because of its charm. unfortunately, over the past 15 years, there's 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 sonya's house, the house in question, and it is quite evident when you

look up and see the existing 30- 31-foot building that anything higher will obliterate whatever light there is. so i'm here to voice my objection and hope you will not let this go forward. >> i'm 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 they're 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. i've lived on lake street since 1992 in a building adjacent to 218 27th avenue. i'm a retired san francisco unified schoolteacher of 35 years. i'm 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 south-facing 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. i'm 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. i'm 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 right-hand side of the chamber. next speaker, please. >> thank you. good evening, board of supervisors. i'm david john and i'm 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 don't 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 didn't have sunlight and her backyard was completely dark because someone built a big apartment building right behind her house. please don't 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 we're 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. it's surreal that the topic before when i first came here was the homeless issue and how many are homeless and here we're taking up an action about who will get shaded out with an extra building and whether there's union labor or not. it's so different, but we're all

connected and i want to invite you to something really wonderful. in front of me, the most beautiful thing, the 40-day 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. it's just not necessary and

we're better than that and it's time for us to take that step forward. it's about power and it's 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 we'll go to the project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i'm 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 2-story, single-fami single-fami single-family residence and 4-story, 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 3-unit, 4-story development is necessary and desirable. in response to the neighbor's

concerns, we modified the project, which will be covered in ms. ayello's 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. i'm jeany pauling, environmental planner. the department's responses to the issues can be grouped into two categories -- procedural and substantive. the first that the planning department didn't 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 planning's 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 appellant's 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 appellant's second contention is that class 1 and 3 categorical exemption is not supported by substantial evidence.

ceqa identifies that which doesn't 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 appellant's 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. i'm 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 single-family home and replacement with a new structure containing three family-sized units. the existing building is not occupied. it's not historic. it's unremarkable in any way except it's 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, 40-foot-high residential buildings are permitted in this district, which is residential mixed. it's also permitted in more restrictive residential districts. and can be found throughout the

project area, 4-story 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 city's 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 small-scale, 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 commission's motion, we recommend that the board uphold the commission's 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, it's 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. it's 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 department's 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? >> it's coming. >> thank you. the project site is rm-1. that's apartment zoning, not rh, lower density. up to four units are personal -- permitted. it proposes three large family-size units to replace one delapidated house. it is consistent with zoning and character of the neighborhood. it is characterized by 3- and 4-story apartment buildings and the 3-story buildings in many cases are more than 30 feet.

single-family home is an anomaly. there's a 9-unit building to the west and 6-unit 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, code-complaint 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 appellant's house.

the planning commission ordered even further revisions at appellant's 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 appellant's home. this is the sensitively designed, small-scale development needed for the west side of town to do its part to address the housing crisis the planning commission saw that and unanimously approved it. it meets all criteria of 317 for 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 owner-occupied until his death in 2014. it's 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 family-size limit in violation of the housing act and the owner's 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 family-sized 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 legislature's 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 appellant's request. they made two requests. first, we agreed to white paint or light-colored 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. we'll collect those. >> good afternoon. i'm 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 don't 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 appellant's 2-story building is indicated in yellow and you can see there's 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, it's capped by a roof ands that large floor-to-floor 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 appellant's 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 4-story buildings in this area are not the anomaly, but 2-story are. it's one of the few single-family 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 2-story 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 it's 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 3-story 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 15-foot 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, we've 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 we've 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 we've 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 2-hour 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 appellant's limited shadow study presented to the planning commission. interestingly, we've 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 appellant's 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, it's arranged so that the existing condition is above with our proposed condition below. you can see this going through all the slides. there's basically full sun on the appellant's 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 hasn't 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 30-foot height and 40-foot 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 sponsor's testimony. now we'll 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. it's 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. i'm 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 francisco's 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 single-family home ener and some neighborhoods that he's 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 i've 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, it's 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 4-story buildings or large 3-story buildings. the sun even at this late date in the year was still above the 4-story 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 i'm speaking in favor of the project and all the things that i've done to accommodate as well as opaquing the windows, taking

off the roof deck, setback 15 feet. it's a well-crafted project, crafted with the help of the planning commission into something that we can be proud of, three very fine units and i'm totally in support. thank you. >> thank you, mr. antonini. next speaker, please. >> shavon with residential builder's 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 that's 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 they've been asked for.

for a developer that's 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. >> i'm navine, residential builder's association. given the circumstances of today, i will keep my comments short. i'm 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, it's been established. they will be nonoperable windows and obscure glass. privacy from the decks. it's been established that the decks have been removed at the

planning commission. the tree, project sponsor has agreed to an arborist. they've agreed to white or beige siding on the side portion and shadow. look at an aerial shot of that site. there's 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 6-0 to approve because we need units, new housing, on the west side. in closing, supervisors, i'd 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, hunter's point, treasure island and i can go on and on. sacrifices have been made around density, height, privacy, and massing. i'm 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, we'll go to a not to exceed 5-minute

reboutte albie -- rebuttal by appellant or appellant representative. the floor is yours, not to exceed 5 minutes. >> it's not the 3-story, it's the part and parcel. we're not asking for density reduction. just a bedroom. a 3-bedroom 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

doesn't 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. we're 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, ma'am. >> 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 sponsor's 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 single-family home to replace it with three units of family-sized housing. also in a neighborhood that doesn't 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. it's 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 single-family home. the home was owner-occupied at

the time he passed away and has been unoccupied since. the sticking point ultimately is around the height. appellant is opposing a 40-foot building which is within the zoning guidelines. it's in district 2. i know the neighborhood well. it's 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 can't get

approved, we'll 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 put in three units of family housing, given the conditions that were approved at the planning department and planning commission, to me, this is something that i think we should move forward with. what i would like to do a make a motion to approve items 31 and 35 and table 30, 32, 33, 34, 36 and 37. >> councillor breed: seconded by supervisor tang. seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk, please call the roll. >> councillor farrell: aye.

>> councillor peskin: aye. >> councillor ronen: aye. >> councillor safai: aye. >> councillor sheehy: aye. >> councillor tang: aye. >> councillor yee: aye. >> councillor breed: aye. >> councillor cohen: aye. >> clerk: 9 ayes, 1 no with supervis supervisor kim absent. >> councillor breed: the motion is adopted. okay, madam clerk, closed session. let's go to roll call. we'll take public comment and then go to our closed session.

>> clerk: supervisor kim? okay. not in the chamber. new business, supervisor peskin? thank you. supervisor r supervis supervisorronen. supervisor safai? >> councillor safai: submit. >> councillor tang: today i'm in rope to deucing a charter measure along with supervisor peskin. it is our budget reform and accountability charter measure and it will do two things, we hope. one, it will provide a mechanism to pause the growth set aside during an economic downturn when deficit exceeds $200 million. and secondly, that funds be

returned in 2018/2019. the reason is that san francisco has 19 set-asides the most of any jurisdiction in the nation. los angeles has adopted two set-asides. san diego, one, san jose, none. with the number of minimum spending requirements, it's gotten out of control. unless we do something about it now, we'll have budget balancing problems in the future. i look forward to working with colleagues and members of the community on this charter measure. and i do have a couple of im memoriams that i will also submit here. wanted to highlight that we're doing our monthly organ donor in memoriam. i will submit that. and i wanted to announce the

wife of j.b. rumberg -- j.b. had worked and was a member of our co-op over at -- in the sunset district. he passed away november 14. he lived in san francisco for 20 years. he could break down bikes and build them up again. his family, they're all huge, hardcore giants' fans. and j.b. could also tell you who won the world series in 1946 or any other year. it's very sad that he has passed away and he's known for his work as a cheese monger and that's how we first met him. i want to send my condolences to his wife and son and yet to be born son.

>> councillor breed: colleagues, today i will be introducing a piece of legislation that both myself and our late mayor were extremely proud of. in fact, it was the last piece of legislation we discussed when we met yesterday. i'm excited to bring forward legislation that will allow the city to purchase the mcdonald site. our intent is clear. we're going to build 100% affordable housing. we know that opportunity sites to build 100% affordable housing are limited in san francisco. those sites are even scarcer in neighborhoods like haight ashbury, which are pretty much developed. this aquisition and the process that will follow will transform a blighted, nuisance property to desperately needed affordable housing. and we're going to do so with

neighborhood preference legislation in place to ensure that residents have a fair shot at getting acticess to new home. we'll be purchasing the site for $15.5 million, a price that is several million below market value. so i'm sure supervisor peskin will be happy to see that in the appraisal. this is an incredible opportunity not just for the haight but for the entire city. i look forward to working with many community members who have already expressed their support for development of affordable housing on the site to get this across the finish line. i believe we can work together to ensure that this project is something that the entire community can be proud of. thank you, colleagues. the rest i submit.

>> clerk: supervisor cohen? >> councillor cohen: thank you. colleagues, i wanted to share with you in the wake of the mayor's untimely death, he, i and supervisor peskin were working collectively and we will regroup in the beginning of the year, right, supervisor peskin? so the three of us joined forces together to begin to call on our retirement system, to begin to phase out divestment of fossil fuels by identifying the riskiest, dirtiest in our portfolio and begin the process of replacing them with cleaner, high-performing assets. and, madam clerk, i have no legislation to commit, but wanted to go on the record. this was an announcement we were prepared to say today during the mayor's time at the beginning of our session.

i also just want to recognize the collective heaviness in the chamber today and i want to remember and remind everyone that the mayor was not only an outstanding public servant but a husband and a father and i think one of my most fondest memories of the mayor is when i would see him interact with little people, young children. he had a knack. he would tell them corny jokes. they would not laugh, well, some laughed at him, not with him. my heart aches. i want to send out the deepest, most heartfelt condolences to mrs. lee and to breanna and to tonya. and let them know that we love them and that we as a city family are wrapping our arms around them and also recognizing that our entire city family is grieving and we'll heal and get through this and the rest i