mr. tunney, did you want to jump in at this point? >> yes, thank you. good evening, president lazarus and members of the board. i'm tom tunney of reuben, juneous, and rose. as kelley described, our architect, john lum, will present the bulk of our presentation today. we appreciate this opportunity to present our project to you. i am -- there's been a lot said already. we can't possibly address each and every point. you probably don't want us to, but we have done so in our papers, and we are tonight going to focus on the primary allegations and are available to discuss any others. i am going to focus on the property and neighborhood background and then address two main legal questions in the project's compliance, and our architect, john lum, will present the project design and address some of the appeals code design issues, as well. you are looking now at the subject project. the address, as stated, is 50 seward street. this is the upper market-castro neighborhood, adjacent to kite hill. the property is on a hill, down sloping from front to back. the proj

mr. tunney, whom would you like to go first? >> i think we're going to have our architect, mr. lum, speak first, and then, the property owner. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> i just wanted to say that there's always great concern about de facto demos, but in this case, it's keeping the front portion of the three exterior walls, and we're saving both existing floors, so that's why this project is achievable and it's not unachievable or unrealistic to save those portions of the structure. there are some cases where you do these demo calcs, and you're removing all the floors. in this case, we're not doing that. and even if there is a scintillating way to keep the roof of this house, we would have done that. but there is a way to extend the calculations so you don't ever get close to the threshold, just wanted to mention that. we also are, as i said, kay and kyle understand the seriousness of this issue, and we're not going to be using a second-rate contractor who is not familiar with san francisco and the complexities that it's involved, especially because we're in a city that doesn

mr. tunney. commissioners, we should take public comment.embers of the public, again, if you would like to submit your testimony on this item, for 24th street, press star and 3 to be entered into the queue. we'll take the first caller and you'll have two minutes. >> yes, hello. >> jonas: yes. >> i'm calling to -- residential use of 2839 24th street and keep the tenants at the same rental rate. we must do all we can to keep our families and tenants with a roof over their head and protect them from becoming homeless. there is enough homeless on our streets. i am in support and keeping this family, they have many family members that live and work here on 24th street. so i am in support of legalizing this unit and keeping those tenants after the work has been done. thank you. >> hi. my name is marie sorenson. we support this allowing the ground floor unit to be converted into a lived space. they're good members of our community. it's a small store front. it's not a large store front. and it falls within our design guidelines. and in the era of c

mr. president. tom tunney of reuben, junius, and rose, on behalf of the project sponsor.am joined by the project architect, jeremy shaw. should questions arise, we'll also hear from our soils expert, david dement. i'd like to start first with the environmental review process and the document at issue here, the community planning evaluation or c.p.e. just to be clear, the c.p.e. isn't an exemption from ceqa review, nor does it just rely on the northern neighborhood's e.i.r. as staff has shown, it's more like an e.i.r. itself in terms of content and analysis. in its own words, the c.p.e. analyzes the project's specified effect on the 10 will 8 howard project. this would determine if the project would result in any significant environmental impacts that were not identified in eastern neighborhood's e.i.r. just like an e.i.r., every area under ceqa is independently evaluated to determine if any environmental impacts exist. the c.p.e. concluded there were none. the base document was 64 pages of analysis and technical studies, were performed on air quality, greenhouse gases, so