we retain non-sequa related topics and these are available for your review. the bulk of the appeal issues, in fact, relate to non-sequa related topics, such as project merits. while i will not be addressing these as they are not germane to the appeal proceeding, you have them in your packets. temporary and housing would be provided. the department of hope weatherness and supportive housing generally has not seen an increase in the amount of emergency services required in the vicinity of navigation centres. calls for emergency services in the area are not expected to increase because of the availability of and connection to services through safe center programmes and staff caring for the clients. even if there were a small increase based on the needs of the population, it would not impact the calls in the area. calls would be at the site due to one location but this concentration would not constitute a significant effect. neighbors have expressed concern about an increase in noise from ambulance sirens. based on date provided by the department of emergency ser

one of the things i learn today is that this isn't a sequa issue. but what this is is a san francisco issue. another thing i learned today is that the san francisco version of, i'm not racist, but is the claim that you care about homeless people right before you make some bullshit augments to o keep a navigation center being built. the gentleman before me talking about a 2-1 support ratio. i was at the first one where there were five that spoke in favour of this navigation center and everyone else was against it and not a single person could tell a story about a neighborhood homeless person who they knew, who they related to, who they spoke to on a regular basis and that is not san francisco. i don't know how you do it out there. i know in district 5, we know our homeless neighbors, we talk to them and feed them and call emergency services if they need help. that's san francisco. this is not a sequ issue and we need to build this. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor. my name is robert fucman. homelessness is a crisis in that neighborhood

now, on to some of the concerns that are related to the sequa request. we want to thank sfpd for join us and for providing us statistics which i'll share with you. crime statistics taken from before and after the opening of four of our navigation centres the bryant demonstrate a decrease in crime and 8% within 1/8 of a mile radius and within 9-1-1 call, one half mile of the proposed site, it shows already quite a high volume with about 3500 calls being made a month and 1200 responses. we would not expect to see more than one additional call on a monthly basis at this site based on the current data that has been presented by both us as well as appellants. speaking generally, we have not seen increases in crime or calls. we've seen a calming effect. however, to mitigate possible impact, the design site has 24/7 dedicated parking for emergency vehicles. but also, i would like to address the concerns about urban decay. to ensure the neighborhood remains clean, hsh will employ a nonprofit cleaning and employment programme to maintain a clean zone around the n

we retain non-sequa related topics and these are available for your review. the bulk of the appeal issues, in fact, relate to non-sequa related topics, such as project merits. while i will not be addressing these as they are not germane to the appeal proceeding, you have them in your packets. temporary and housing would be provided. the department of hope weatherness and supportive housing generally has not seen an increase in the amo

as you know, one of the issues in sequa appeals is historic preservation and the board of supervisors upheld the determination. in terms of the rear yard percentage as the appellant noted, the percentage on 1598 bay street, there's more open space on the subject lot than the project architect demonstrated that. so there's more on the subject lot in totality. additionally, in terms of the impacts on 159 the 8 bay streete of the benefit they were adding, while not complying exposure, they were providing substantial open space in the terms of the roof deck which won't be impacted. i believe it would be as a part of the project and part of common open space, open overhead. so i don't know if this rendering depicts the location of everything on the adjacent building, but there's a substantial kind of deck area and the subject property is not developing the roof deck. so i think there's adequate, light air kind of access to open-space areas. is it ideal? i think had the projects come along, maybe it could have been a more elegant solution. when i was looking at the plans, i was confused and

we retain non-sequa related topics and these are available for your review. the bulk of the appeal issues, in fact, relate to-s