tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 12, 2017 8:00pm-9:01pm PST
i don't know. i mean, i just -- i'm just uncomfortable, and i'm uncomfortable because of the way largely because of how the department of homelessness -- and this goes before your tenure, director. i don't want to make this personal. this is definitely before you came on board, but it has been the administration's policy to move first and ask questions later, or apologize later. they allocate the money, but it takes a long time to get forward, so this is where i am uncomfortable. if you like, you can speak to it. if not, you can just take it -- take it and internalize it. it's up to you. thank you. >> well, i just wanted to -- just as a -- to clarify, i believe the sunset provision is in item 57, not in item 56. item 57, which i know will be
heard next, has the sunset 56 really just focused on 440 turk, and again, i would just echo what supervisor ronen said earlier about the fact that we are experiencing an emergency on our streets. we all see it every day. my staff and i see it. i think even more acutely with the people who are out, trying to assist and to get indoors. and i also just want to add that i do think that we do have data emerging, and i think we just saw with the release of hud's report with homelessness rising in every single city on the west coast. in most cases, double digit increases, and terrific hsan f has managed to have a slight reduction. i don't think we should be celebrating a point count until the number is zero. i think that is in part due to the opening of navigation centers and permanent and
supportive housing. >> thank you, madam president. i have no other questions. >> can you, supervisor cohen. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: thank you, president breed. so we had this special will you jet committee on monday which i guess constituted an emergency meeting, and so this particular item, we actually passed it out of committee with no recommendation. and i made that recommendation to do this, and it was supported by both my colleagues that were at the committee meeting. and -- but for me, i supported it for two reasons: one of them being that i wasn't real clear -- if this really constituted an emergency in regards to -- what -- with the intent that most of this was
supposed to be building office space out. and that the thought may be since we're here, we should do -- maybe create an access point which has some logic to that. and when we talk about this 40 years, this was supposed to be an office space, and it's an emergency, it didn't seem correct to me. maybe if that was the only thing i was concerned about, i could have supported it, but the main reason i thought i couldn't support a positive recommendation and to send it out to committee with no recommendation so that we could actually have this discussion was, you know, i wasn't comfortable with how this was put on the agenda with almost
no notice to the community. and it was just odd to me for all the passion that we have in the community on this issue one way or another, that we ended up only having basically two people from the community th-- community that showed up for the meeting, and my office had not had a chance to have a conversation around this. i wanted to get a chance to listen to the community and make sure that what you were stating at the committee meeting in terms of the outreach -- there was outreach, but what i also heard from one of the two persons that came was but we never heard anything after the outreach about what was the conclusion or what was going to be done so that -- maybe because -- continue to
giv give input. so i'm just going to let you know why i supported no 'e recommendation, and i will be supporting a continuance of this mainly because of the second part. which is i think we need to -- you know, the city departments in general, gentlemen in the hallways, they don't do a good job in outreach. it sounded like you did a great job in the initial outreach, but no follow up. so i want to give, in the next few weeks, give the community an opportunity to respond. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, madam president. i just want to say that i know that supervisor kim and i tried to talk this through yesterday. it was in -- in all fairness, it was very last minute, and we were trying to make an as-informed decision as possible. what i have heard here based on
the questions from supervisor kim, i walk away with more confusion, and there isn't really a strong argument that i've heard for the emergency declaration and then, the plan, and i tried to come up with a solution yesterday directing a department to come up with a formalized plan on the space. i didn't hear anything about a nonprofit operating the space as an access point yesterday. maybe i missed that in the presentation, and you might have said that. i very -- you very well might have, and there was a lot going on, but i would say that based on that information, what i was trying to do -- and again, just for your consideration, was that the department would -- we would allow this to move forward because i think that the -- what i've heard here today is that we would be up and running, supervisor sheehy, as well, that we'd be up and running in june. whether we spend the next three weeks packing or the next three weeks preparing for the holidays, and that's just a
reality of where we are right now, getting out on the street and getting people out on the street working on this issue. i think what we haven't heard definitively, is if we haven't done this emergency declaration, how much are we looking at. and i understand what the resolution was about, and there's a sunset clause in there, but i'd like maybe the department of public works, mr. edgar lopez can come forward, and we haven't really heard that. removing the sunset clause -- i think supervisor kim and i tried to talk through the 20% that's not office space would be used for, we asked the department of homelessness to work with the community and come up over the next month or so or two to define how that space would be used, working with the district supervisor, so we did get that on the record and that was the plan. but now, i'm hearing when different arguments as to what the plan might be, and that's okay.
but there's a community outreach of the definition of the space that's not office, and then there's an emergency declaration. so if we were not to do the emergency declaration mr. lopez, what would that mean in terms of the project scope and how much additional time would that add to this particular location? >> good afternoon, supervisors. edgar lopez with public works. our agency would be the one who would be implementing the work doing the tenant improvements at 440 turk street. if you were to approve this resolution, it would expedite the amount of time it takes to procure contracts, implement the design. we estimate it would save any from 17 to 30 months, we would mobilize as early as january 12th to start abatement of hazardous materials while design is being completed and run lots of different things in parallel. so if -- for -- if this gets
delayed, we're losing day by day, and if we were not to do it through an emergency declaration, again, it would add seven to 12 months to the construction schedule. >> supervisor safai: from when that was awarded -- so it would have to be a bidding practices. >> yeah. we would have to go through a bidding process. >> supervisor safai: so i would ask the district chair to -- maybe she can say exactly what her prerogative is. what i was trying to do in committee yesterday was the idea that the department would spend the time working with the community, coming -- and your office coming up with a definitive plan on the nonoffice space but allowing this emergency declaration to go forward with the hope that we could expedite the process to get the office located and up and running. i don't think there's any did he -- debate that this is where
the office is going to be. i was not on this body when the money was funded and allocated, and so that i maybe there was in that process, but through the chair i would like to see if there's any compromise, but if not, i would defer to the supervisor and support that continuance. >> president breed: supervisor kim? >> vice president brandon: before i respond to that question, i wanted to bring the question about the department of public works back up, and just when i heard you say that you would save seven to 12 months, i think it would be important for you to explain what is involved in expediting a project and why we don't do it every single time. >> be happy to. supervisor, the way we would envision delivering this as fast as possible is to award a design build contract to a builder who would take the
early design that we've done at public works, work with oursub krooz to -- our sub contractors because the sub contractors would be doing the design, the trade work. they don't need to have a fully designed set of plans, so they in essence take our concept, do enough work to get a building permit, and they begin to do their work quickly and they're responsible for guaranteeing a schedule because they own the design and the construction on a guaranteed price. >> design build construction. >> design build. >> vice president brandon: why donwhy -- >> why don't we do this every single time? >> we don't have the authority to do that on an every single basis. >> and why is that? >> we have to do a full set of drawings, put it out to bid. >> and this is the only reason
we can expedite by six or seven months, just because we turn it into design construct. >> no, because we're bypassing a competitive process. >> right. we're bypassing a competitive source contract and going to a sole source contract, something that this board raises a number of concerns about because we want to make sure we're getting the best price and the best services. that's why we use a declaration of emergency in limited cases, and i just want to quote the administrative code. the specific definition of an emergency is quote, as a sudden, unforeseeable and unexpected occurrence. so when this board of supervisors and the mayor approves millions of dollars to rehabilitate 440 turk in june of 2016 and it is a state of emergency, sudden, unforeseeable and unexpected, i expect we could make this declaration in june of 2016 or july of 2016 at the latest. and i -- i think it's not
simply enough that it's designed build construct, which is great. i think we should do that for everything, but that we're also doing a single source contract, which this board consistently raises kerps about it, and when we do utilize it, it is in rare circumstances that we feel that it is necessary to move a project forward. i haven't heard a single argument today as to why an office space for a department deserves this type of vehicle. now, we'll have three weeks to talk about it. it's possible that i can be convinced to continue to use this as a vehicle, but honestly, i would love to save six to seven months on everything that we do in the city. i think it's an emergency that we're not building more protected bike lanes right now. i would love to save six or seven months on all of those projects. i would love to declare a declaration of emergency on everything the city does, but we don't do it. so if we're going to do this and not that, i think we need to develop a real distinct
argument as to why this case specifies for that. so thank you, that was my response to the department of public works, in response to supervisor safai, though, i really want to appreciate that you came to me yesterday to talk to me about finding a way that we can move forward with a compromise. when i was first alerted to this item yesterday morning, even though it was introduced on october 31st, and no one failed to come to my office and tell me hey, we're introducing a declaration of emergency to build an office space on 440 turk. i got an e-mail sunday at 6:30 p.m. i was on a flight coming back from austin, and i didn't see it until monday morning. i was just told that we want to move forward with 440 turk. these are the specifications we want to see. i said great. i like the shower, i like the laundry services. i didn't hear about an access
point, i didn't hear about an rfp nonprofit. i'm incredibly disappointed by this process. i'm incredibly disappointed that for six weeks, no one told me it was an emergency. i mean, i'm just -- i'm getting really frustrated right now by the process that this has gone through, and this was an 18 month delay from when this board allocated to put hhs in a singular department because we all agreed that this group needed to be a unified group of public health services, hhs and hh hha. so if this was an emergency 18 months ago, i just can't move forward with this today. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor farrell? >> supervisor farrell: thank you, supervisor breed, and thank you, supervisor kim. i appreciate all that you've
said about learning some new facts along the way, and i definitely want to be supportive of you as a district supervisor for a continuance. through the chair, understanding your thought process, i understand that also working with this department, i understand that there's stranger emergency things here. i was with you when we allocated the funds a long time ago, but i do think it's something that should be built ultimately. just through the chair, it's something over the next few weeks, you work with the community to see if you can get there. i would be frustrated if i'm in your hsus, as well, and i want to be sure that this is moving on down the line to vote on it hopefully in a positive manner three weeks from now. >> supervisor kim: i would just like to say again -- >> president breed: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: oh, i'm so sorry. through the president, my apologies. at no point yesterday did anyone mention a declaration of
emergency. i learned about it finally when i got home at 9:00 p.m. last night, and i finally read the item. i just can't tell you how frustrated i am about the lack of transparency throughout this whole process. colleagues, i ask for your support on item 56 and would love to pass item 57 in the next one. >> president breed: all right. seeing no other names on the roster, supervisor kim has made a motion to continue this item to the meeting of january 9th, 2018, and it has been seconded. madam clerk, on the item, please call -- on the motion, please call the roll. >> clerk: [ roll call. ]
>> clerk: thank you. there are ten ayes. >> president breed: this item will be continued to the meeting of january 9th, 2018. madam clerk, next item. >> item 57 was recommended as 5i78ed with the same title. it's recommended authorizing a declaration of emergency and authorizing department of works repair facility pursuant to administrative code 660 subsection a and the director of the department of homelessness and support of housing to contract for homeless services and to offer such services to protect the health safety and welfare of individuals affected by homelessness. >> president breed: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes, colleagues. i wanted to speed ak for a mom
about the difference a homeless shelter made in district nine. i think we opened up a district center working with dpw in about two months, and it has reduced the number of people living in tents in the mission district. when we started and right before we opened up and counted the tents, we were around 200, and we got down at one point to 30 tents, and they're now up hovering around the 60, 70 area. but what also came with the navigation center was, i think, an unprecedented amount of resources. resources from dpw, from the hot team, from the police and from the department of public health behind the scenes, but i think it -- in the future, i'd like to see the department of public health at the table itself. and it really was that -- that
joint effort, everyone working together, that made the difference, and so i'm as frustrated as supervisor cohen and kim with the fact that most, if not all of the homeless services in the city, with very few exceptions, are in our three districts. it it's frustrating. it's not fair, and i've always fought and will continue to fight for more resources for our districts that are dealing with the bulk of the city problems. but i think we need a shift in our understanding of navigation centers, and instead of seeing them as such a burden, seeing them as a real opportunity and as something that very much improves the safety and atmosphere and well-being of a neighborhood. and i think that we always talk about navigation centers in such a negative way, all citing, not in my neighborhood.
and that just happens in the experience in the mission district, and it has to be done very thoughtfully with additional resources. but when it's done that way, it's made a huge improvement in our neighborhood, so i just want to caution us against, you know, speaking so negatively about navigation centers. they're an assess to this city. and i also wanted to say that we have an over 1,000 person waiting list every single night for our shelter system in san francisco. so this -- this myth that the people don't want to be housed indoors is a myth. we just don't have enough beds, and so we need more navigation centers throughout the city, and of course, the three navigation centers that the city is currently working on, once again, one is in district 6, one is in district 9, and one is in district 10, no big surprise there. but they are in areas where homeless people are living.
they're near freeways. they're in more industrial sections of the city, and that's what neighbors often ask for us to do, is to place navigation centers there. so as i said, i'm very nervous because it was mayor lee that was pushing this project, and he really saw the urgency that i've seen, and we were working on it together. and i hope that his passing doesn't end this work, and it's something that i deeply fear. the way that navigation centers are talked about negatively in this city, that scares me because we truly, truly have an emergency, and the only way to fix it, the only way to get people off the streets is to find another place for people to be. there is no other way to fix it. we can't arrest our way out of this problem. we can't push people off a cliff. there's just no other way.
and so i just want to ask all of my colleagues here, please please, even though we won't have barely in the mayor's office pushing this forward, please continue to work with me to push this forward. because this work cannot go backwards, and i'm very fearful of that right now. and the last thing thi would s it's something i want to delve in more, and supervisor kim, you really moved me in your talk in expressing your frustrations is despite the fact that we created a department of homelessness to stream line services and have them under one roof, that really hasn't happened completely. we have all of our behavioral health beds, all of our substance abuse beds, under the control of the department of public health. they don't talk very regularly or coordinate at the level that
i believe they should be coordinating with the department of homelessness so that if you want to get help for someone -- today, there was a front page article on the chronic will that was eclipsed by the tremendous tragedy, but i've been working with everyone in the city that will listen and an intern in my office to try to get a woman on the streets, alice, off the streets, and indoors and housed. it's a struggle to even figure out where the beds are and where the beds are, and who 's working with who, and who can share information, and it's something that i'm going to be working very closely on next year. but i, first and foremost am appreciative that we're having this conversation on a day that i feel very scared about and just want to reiterate one more time, please, we've got to get
more navigation centers open. we've got to get them up, open all over the city, and we've got to get people off the streets indoors and have services. thank you. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor ronen, and we all feel just as strongly as you do about moving forward and getting these navigation centers open and getting so many of the folks off the street and housed, so we appreciate your passion and your work that you've done on this particular issue, so thank you. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you. i just wanted to bring director kosiczsky up. i wanted to make sure that we
were being good neighbors, and i know supervisor ronen certainly fought for those additional resources at 1515 south vanness, and i wanted to hear and reiterate that those resources would be committed to those two, as well. >> i cannot commit resources from other departments, but i can certainly commit to 1515 south vanness continuing to work with the police department and the department of public health to ensure that not only the needs of the residents of the navigation center, the residents who live around the navigation center, and the residents are met. one of the things we discussed is bringing in an organization such as downtown streets that are bringing job training to the residents and are cleaning up the environment around the facility. just a couple of days ago, i was touring the site with
supervisor cohen and two of the downtown streets residents had recently found housing or people who were engaged in their job training program, so i think this model has worked very, very well at this site, not only in terms of keeping the area cleaner, but also in terms of providing services to the residents. so we certainly can move forward with that model and are certainly committed to providing the same level of partnership that we had with the opening of 1515 south vanness center and continuing to work with the police and public works. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam president. i was just going to make two comments. one is actually sitting with the city attorney. the emergency determination section of the administrative code is actually kind of a little weird because it has two
different definitions. one of an actual emergency and then, actually where there was a drafting error or not gives the board of supervisors wider latitude, it appears, in declaring an emergency, so i'm going to step back a little bit from my earlier statements, but i do want to send a message to the department, which is -- and i think a lot of this is a function of two things. one is there's an imperative to hurry up, and one is a department that doesn't know the ways of government. you're seeing some of that dynamic as work here, because in the words of supervisor david campos, who was a stickler about not waiving competitive bid and not going to sole source contracts because those things actually evolved over time to have fair bidding processes and to end up in many cases with the lowest
possible bid and price to the city, so i want to push you guys in that direction as much as you can over time. because this emergency, which we all know is an emergency, has been a perrenial emergency for a long period of time. so start planning ahead, start putting those things in the hopper, start the competitive bid, and you won't have these 45 minute hearings over something that should take five minutes, for what it's worth. >> president breed: thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, clerk call the roll.
>> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: there are nine ayes and one no. >> president breed: the resolution is adopted. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: item 58 was considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on thursday, december 1 11th and was forward as a committee report. it's a resolution to -- limiting off street working for new development projects to the principlely permitted accessory parking ratios established under the planning code and removing the possibility to apply for a conditional use authorization to increase such parking in the area known as the hub and applying these interim zoning controls to development projects that have not received an approval of a duplicate application. to make the appropriate findings. >> president breed: roll call
vote. >> clerk: [ roll call. ] >> clerk: there are ten ayes. >> president breed: the resolution is adopted unanimously. next item, please. >> clerk: item 59 was considered by the public safety and services committee at a regular meeting on december 7th and was recommended as a committee report it was recommended that a careless match, llc doing business as the dark horse inn has completed the preapplication meeting requirement for the issuance of a new nonsale general liquor license. >> president breed: colleagues, can we take this same item same call. >> and the final item before we go to our 3:00 p.m. special
order. >> item 60 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on thursday, december 1 1g9. it's an -- 11th. -- due to administrative orders to vacate issues by the department of building inspection or the fire department to receive financial assistance from the fund for up to two years. >> president breed: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, colleagues. about -- let's say about eight, nine months ago, i think you might remember that there was the horrible situation at five persia where we discovered 27 individuals living in dungeon-like conditions. one way in, no way out. this was a former garage that the owner had subdivided into cubicles. they were living underground through no fault of their own
because of the hazardous situations, the fire marshal and the department of building inspection and the department of homelessness intervened, identified the situation and gave orders to vacate. given the situation and the horrible situation in oakland with the fire, there was a higher group and a working group on homeless housing, but this evolved into a situation where people were living in hazardous housing situations, so hence the name of this fund. we modelled a transitional housing fund based on the fire victims' assistance fund. this fund will allow individuals again, at no fault of their own to be relocated into temporary housing, pay the old rent that they were paying, and then, the city would subsidize the balance. this was an appropriate situation. we knew that more of them were
going to be discovered, and ultimately again, another situation in supervisor ronen's district where 30 individuals were living was discovered. similar to the fire victims' assistance fund, this would be a discretionary fund to allow for transitional housing substanceidy. the fire marshal issued for the first time in the city's history, not only a notice to vacate but a notice to pay two months rent along with utilities to the building owner, so each individual was awarded over $4,000 to transition into their housing. we worked with the light house, the salvation army light house housed many of the families or individuals that did not find permanent housing. so the idea of this fund is to work with the existing agencies when we identify these situations to provide transitional housing, and then, we will ultimately look to find them permanent housing in these
situations. so i ask for your support today on this matter and going forward, we hope to have something in place to help those individuals that in many situations have been grocessly abused and taken advantage of. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor safai. colleagues, seeing no other names on the roster, can we pass this item, same house, same call? without objection, this ordinance is passed unanimously on the first reading. madam clerk, let's go to item 32 through -- 30 through 33,
our appeals. >> clerk: [ inaudible ] at 21827th avenue to demo lish an existing two story single-family home and construct a four story building containing 12 residences and four parking spaces. item 34 through 37 comprise the hearing of persons interested in the certification of a conditional use authorization for the project located at 218-27th avenue issued by the planning commission dated october 12, 2017 to demo lish an existing single-family dwelling, item 35 approved the conditional use authorization, and item 37 directs the preparation of findings.
>> president breed: colleagues, we have before us two appeals related to planning department's determination of exemption from environmental review and a conditional use authorization. we are going to hear the two peals togeth appeals together, and after voting, the board will vote. it takes six votes to reverse or uphold the planning commission's determination. if it is rejected, the conditional use authorization becomes moot. no other approval actions can take place, and we will table those items. if the environment cal determination is upheld, we will then vote on the conditional use authorization. it requires five votes to oppose the conditional use authorization or overturn it for additional hearings.
the planning commission's conditional use authorization, since we are combining both appeals, i've worked with the city attorney's office and the clerk to revise our normal hearing procedures to provide speakers with a bit more time, so without objection, we will proceed as follows: up to 15 minutes instead of 10 for a presentation by the appellant or the appellant's representative, so that will be 17.5-minute for the first appeal, second 7.5-minute for the second appeal. up to two minutes perspeaker in opposition of the appeal, and finally, up to five minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or the appellant representative. please note if you are here to
speak on either the 218-27th avenue appeal, this will be the time to do so, specifically for these appeals. we will open up this hearing, and seeing no names on the roster, if the first appellant could come forward, and you will have 7.5-minutes unless you can specify whether or not the two appeals are from the same individual. excuse me, the two presentations will be the same person. >> yes. good afternoon, madam president, members of the board. we can hadid have advanced not where we would have a consolidated hearing, where 15 minutes would be allotted -- >> president breed: so we will start your time, and you can proceed with your presentation. >> okay. great. thank you. thank you. my name's robia crisp.
i'm with the law firm of hanson bridgett, and i'm here on behalf of the appellants. they join me here along with their architectural consultant, randy popp, and we will be hearing from them later in this presentation. the -- property line of the project site. the project is for the demolition of an existing single-family home that has
been there since 1917. this is a spec development that would demo lish this home and replace it with a four three market rate condominium units and three parking spaces. this is a massive building in size and intensity. there's out of scale with the neighborhood. it extends almost boundary to boundary. it has no front set backs, no side set backs, and required a rear yard set back reduction, so it is cheap to jowl, and it is a massive building that will be located here in place of the single-family home that is there now. what the bern stesteins will h the entire back of their home
shrouded in darkness. they will lose all the public living spaces in the rear of their home, including the children's bedrooms, their kitchen, a dining room. they'll no longer have any view at all of the midblock open space, and while they're the most severely bank accountimpa project, the same will affect the adjacent properties as well, so we are here for two reasons. first, the city was not provided with complete and accurate information about the project, particularly with regard to impacts on the adjacent lots and the predominance of three story buildings in this neighborhood, and this precluded the city from fully evaluating the project on the merits based on accurate and detailed information, and it basically precluded meaningful review of the project and did not include
all of the information that was required to support the findings that were made in approving the conditional use authorization. with respect to the issuance of the categorical exemption determination, for purposes of ceqa, the procedural requirements in this case were not satisfied, so there were a number of content requirements, noticing requirements, posting requirements under the city's ceqa implementing regulations that were not followed. and because of that, the purposes of ceqa were essentially undermined in that there wasn't an opportunity for early input, for consideration of potential impacts of the project, and i will provide just a couple of examples. we've provided a lot of detail in our appeal documents, but as one example, and as the
planning department concedes, the ceqa document incorrectly states that the planning action is a building permit. and that is isolated. the planning department said that was inaccurate. it should have also applied to the conditional use authorization, but in the context of ceqa, that really matters, and the fact that the notice didn't indicate that it's for a conditional use authorization, which typically will warrant more scrutiny than a building permit really didn't further the purposes of ceqa. another example, there were changes to the project made after the determination was made in 2016, and there was a requirement under the administrative code that the city then look at the project again to see if that required reevaluation of the project,
and that was not done. so collectively, the procedural irregularities and the failure to adhere to the procedural qualities of seek i can't prevented the community to provide input early on in the process. i would like to move onto the conditional use authorization issue. as i stated, there was inaccurate information, erroneous information, incomplete information, and because of that, the findings that were required in order to approve the conditional use authorization were not adequately supported. oh, overhead.
there we go. so this is the bern dine decide deccarat's property. this is the project site. i will focus on two of the findings that were required in order to approve the conditional use authorization. one is whether the project is detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, and the findings which required that determination to be made didn't really consider the project's impacted impacts on light and air and it's effect casting significant shadows on adjacent properties. instead, this was sort of done as the process was moving along. the planning commission was presented with competing light and shadow studies at the hearing for the first time, and really staff, in reviewing the
project and in making its recommendation to planning commission should have had the benefit of this information, particularly because the shadow impacts are so severe. another finding required consideration of whether the building at the size and intensity contemplated is compatible with the neighborhood, and it's been put forward by the project sponsor that there are many four-story buildings in this area along 27th street and on lake street. and in fact, this markup, which is a map of the 30 foot radius map, it shows that the building height is actually predominantly three-story buildings. so the green represented three-story buildings, and the red represents four-story buildings. so really, there were essential facts that were critical to making the findings to support
the conditional use authorization approval that just simply was not available. and we are -- we are -- we are in a position where the process has moved so far along that we are trying to supply the information that should have been provided at the outset in order to properly evaluate the project and go through the ceqa process. the bernstein deccaratt's are not requesting that you deny the project. they are simply requesting that you consider the severe impacts on their property, to consider the neighborhood context, and lower the height of the building to 30 feet. and i will turn the podium over to randy popp.
he is going to speak to the shadow impacts, as well as the feasiblity of lowering the height of the building and yet still maintaining the density that the project sponsor desires. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is randy popp, and i'm a licensed architect. i've been practicing for 30 years, and part of what i do is search for patterns, understand context and develop and understand sensitive projects that correspond with the local environment. i studied the environment. i think we all understand they represent a maximum limit and not a right. the rules must be seen in relation to specific conditions which exist around each unique site. i was pretty shocked the first time i saw the proposal for 218-27th avenue. it was a massive design that looms over its neighbors on the block. although the fourth level is
pulled back a bit, it still reads four stories in a neighborhood that is populated by three stories. i performed some shadow studies and found the fourth level creates a dramatic difference in how much light is removed from the neighboring property does. t -- properties. no one had the opportunity to study the other presentation. from the very quick look i had, it appeared to be in contrast with mine and seemed to be pretty inaccurate. the solution is simple and reasonable. i'm not suggesting that you deny the project, just to modify it. i've quickly done a study that shows you can maintain three homes into three stories by
removing one bedroom. a three unit such as this would be similar to what you might find around the neighborhood and across much of the city. i'm hoping you would think about how you would feel if this was in your back yard, taking away your sun light and forever taking away your quality of life. this project has the potential to be so much better, and i'd like to suggest that's what you should be seeking. i hope you will please support this appeal and send the project back to planning review with a condition that it be no more than three stories. >> my name is alex bernstein. i live at 2545 lake street with my wife and three children. i'm here with my wife and many of my neighbors to propose deep concern for the project as proposed and to suggest modest changes. i don't want to limit
opportunities for new richmond residents, but rather ensure that everyone's needs are met. as a multicultural bilink we-- bilingual family, we want to stay, however, that will be difficult if the new building drastically reduces or living conditions. i asked my neighbors why they've lived in the richmond for over 20 years. what i heard was a love for beautiful living, street, and safe streets. at 40 feet high, this building changes the living conditions of every signee of the appeal. 63 people, representing over 150 residents in districts one and two, i ask you, should a developer who bought and then
abandoned a how'use, creating serious rodent issue, take precedence over the # 0 resident signatures who opposed this appeal? light. a 40 foot building casts year-long shadows on more than three buildings with dozens of residents. this commission has in the past, adjusted building requests that have had an extraordinary or unusual impact on immediate neighbors. two, precedent. if the board allows this outsized project to move forward, an overwhelmingly building on a normal black, it may set precedent for more buildings currently not in alignment with richmond standings. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is sonia daccarrat, and i live at 2545 lake street with
alex bernstein and our three children. i grew up in cali, columbia, a beautiful see where urban development unfortunately went unchecked for many decades view to violence and lack of oversight. as people flooded into my city from the country side looking for safety, formerly green, leafy neighborhoods were plowed over to make room. as a result, the city is a blighted stain. we spent a lot -- we spent a large amount of time collecting neighbors' signatures and thoughts to bring this issue forward today. we're only opposed to development that is too larged and too oversized for the
neighborhood. my husband and i love san francisco. we raised our children in the city and sent them to public schools, despite the many challenges the city poses for families. along with our neighbors, we have come here today for support, asking for very little. [ inaudible ] >> president breed: thank you very much. we will now open it up to public comment. for those who are here to support the appeal, if you are here in support of the appeal, please lineup to your right. you have two
and not to bring a monstrosity into a residential neighborhood and take away our light and our privacy, in order to have livable conditions for everyone we're only asking that the building be painted a light color outside to reflect light and to reduce the size to 30 feet. thank you, again, for your consideration and we definitely oppose this type of building in our neighborhood. thank you. >> councillor breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> madam president, honorable superviso supervisors, i'm a 26-year resident of the richmond and a neighbor that lives across the
street kitty corner. i'm a retired architect and former director of the art commission. i oppose the building as designed because, one, the top of the penthouse level, 47 1/2 feet, 16 1/2 feet over the adjacent 31-foot building. and 7 1/2 feet over the 40-foot code limit. two, the 4-story project visually overpowers other buildings. unit three, which is the top level gives 2,135 square feet of living space and 855 square feet of three private deck spaces over three levels to the detriment of units 1 and 2, which split level separating living and kitchen from the bedrooms with little or no storage or deck space. theres an inequity here.
in order to give a 490-foot, expansive deck on one level and top floor, is just for living room and dining room. that is the whole level of the four fourth floor. it seems to overbuild in size to build one luxury unit while squeezing in two other units. all units split the kitchen and living room apart from the bedrooms by placing them on different levels, which may lead to access problems on a daily basis in the future. your consideration to limit the levels and height of the project is appreciated. >> councillor breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
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