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. Its 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 lets 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 dungeonlike 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 ronens 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 citys 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, lets go to item 32 through 30 through 33, our appeals. Clerk [ inaudible ] at 21827th avenue to demo lish an existing two story singlefamily 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 21827th avenue issued by the Planning Commission dated october 12, 2017 to demo lish an existing singlefamily 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 Departments 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 Commissions 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 Commissions conditional use authorization, since we are combining both appeals, ive worked with the City Attorneys 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 appellants representative, so that will be 17. 5minute for the first appeal, second 7. 5minute 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 21827th 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. 5minutes 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 names robia crisp. Im with the law firm of hanson bridgett, and im 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 singlefamily 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. Theres 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 singlefamily 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 childrens bedrooms, their kitchen, a dining room. Theyll no longer have any view at all of the midblock open space, and while theyre 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 citys ceqa implementing regulations that were not followed. And because of that, the purposes of ceqa were essentially undermined in that there wasnt an opportunity for early input, for consideration of potential impacts of the project, and i will provide just a couple of examples. Weve 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 didnt indicate that its for a conditional use authorization, which typically will warrant more scrutiny than a Building Permit really didnt 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 cant 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 deccarats 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 didnt really consider the projects impacted impacts on light and air and its 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 its been put forward by the project sponsor that there are many fourStory 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 threeStory Buildings. So the green represented threeStory Buildings, and the red represents fourStory 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 deccaratts 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 im a licensed architect. Ive 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 21827th 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. Im not suggesting that you deny the project, just to modify it. Ive 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. Im 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 id like to suggest thats 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. Im here with my wife and many of my neighbors to propose deep concern for the project as proposed and to suggest modest changes. I dont want to limit opportunities for new richmond residents, but rather ensure that everyones 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 theyve 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 howuse, creating serious rodent issue, take precedence over the 0 resident signatures who opposed this appeal . Light. A 40 foot building casts yearlong 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. Were 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 were a diverse block of homeowners and friends and we pass food through our kitchen windows and were used to living close to each other. What were asking for is not to stop development, but to be sustainable and responsible, thoughtful, and considerate. 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 were 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, im a 26year