BRIEF(S) SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT(S)

BRIEF(S) SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT(S)

November 21, 2018 City & County of San Francisco Board of Appeals 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: Appeal No. 18-141 Underberg vs. DPW-BSM 40 Bernal Heights Boulevard, Street Improvement Permit No. 17IE-0568 Planning Project Profile No. 2014-003191PRJ 40 Bernal Heights Boulevard, 965, 985 & 1025 Powhattan Avenue Dear President Fung and Commissioners, Dispute at Issue: We feel our neighborhood has been misled. Subsequent to the project s approval and without community notification or involvement, we learned of project changes affecting Bernal Heights Boulevard that radically alter the plans as approved by the Planning Commission at its hearing on July 21, 2016. The changes are resulting in the following losses to the neighborhood: 1. Reduced sidewalk width in front of 40 Bernal Heights Blvd. 1

The old sidewalk was nearly 8 feet wide. The reduced sidewalk will be either 6 feet wide with a bulb out or no less than 4feet 3 inches without a bulb out. 2. Reduced street and intersection width resulting in a reduced margin of safety for vehicles turning into and out of Chapman Street, due to the proposed bulb out located in front of 40 Bernal Heights Blvd. and across from Chapman Street. The one-foot nine-inch bulb out intruding into the intersection is intended to compensate for losing a portion of the sidewalk. 3. Reduced parking due to the new bulb out and in addition to parking already lost to the curb cuts for access to the four new homes. SFMTA has recommended removing all remaining parking opposite 40 Bernal Heights Blvd. from Chapman Street west to Nevada Street. The parking legislation is on the consent calendar for SFMTA Board hearing on December 4, 2018. 4. Removal of all proposed in-property trees along the Bernal Heights Blvd. sidewalk. As a remedy, rather than allow street trees to be planted in replacement, the city intends to assess in-lieu fees that will only benefit some other neighborhood. Outline of Arguments: The permit process is confusing. The permit we are appealing was approved before the sidewalk legislation and major encroachment plans, which are conditions of the permit, have been completed. It was issued in advance of final plans. Another technicality, the permit also 2

references the wrong block: 40 Bernal Heights Blvd. is between Rosenkranz and Carver Streets, not between Nevada St./Powhattan Ave. and Rosenkranz St. The neighborhood was not notified of the city's intention to narrow the intersection of Chapman Street and Bernal Heights Blvd. by locating a bulb out on the south side of Bernal Hts. Blvd. and across the street from the only access point to Chapman and Rosenkranz Streets. According to current city procedures, no hearing is required because the bulb out is less than one city block in length, despite its location. We feel this is a safety issue: it affects the flow of traffic, and increases the dangers for right turns from Chapman onto westbound Bernal Hts. Blvd. and left turns from eastbound Bernal Hts. Blvd. onto Chapman. As it is, cars speed over the centerline and often do not stay in their lane as they approach the blind curve at Bradford Street (immediately east of the Chapman/Bernal Hts. Blvd. intersection). Narrowing the road and moving the centerline will only exacerbate this existing problem and is likely to make both intersections more dangerous. Without the bulb out the sidewalk will satisfy the ADA minimum sidewalk width of 4 feet. With the bulb out, it is not clear that vehicle turning radius for a single-unit truck will be adequate (e.g., Recology and some fire trucks). In spite of the bulb out and allowing for parked cars, the turning radii for a passenger car seem to be adequate. See Appendices for design vehicle radii and the Existing Striping Plan for roadway dimensions. Prior to the implementation of the Better Streets Plan, I was chairperson of the Bernal Heights East and South Slope Improvement Committee a committee elected by the residents and property owners of an area subject to life/safety improvements funded by Propositions B and K. 3

During this infrastructure project, the accepted sidewalk design dimensions were a minimum width of 4 feet for the sidewalk itself, plus an18- inch wide planting strip adjacent to the sidewalk for trees and other plants, plus 6 inches for the curb, totaling a 6-foot wide sidewalk right-of-way. Many streets in Bernal Heights are not wide enough to accommodate the current 7.5-foot wide sidewalk requirement for street trees. If exceptions to this requirement will never be permitted, and there is no appeal process, then as trees die in Bernal Heights, we will have a much reduced tree canopy. Prior to obtaining permits, concrete was poured for the retaining wall and fence line behind 965 and 985 Powhattan Avenue and along the Bernal Heights Blvd. sidewalk in a manner inconsistent with the plan accepted by the neighborhood and approved by the Planning Commission. This eliminated the possibility of the planned staggered fence line that created pockets for planting trees to create windbreaks and planting vines to cover the fence. Instead, the trees to be planted behind 965 and 985 Powhattan have disappeared from the developer's plan. The current minimum sidewalk width requirement of 7.5 feet exceeds the width of the existing sidewalk abutting these three properties along Bernal Hts. Blvd. This prevents the city from approving street trees, no exceptions, no appeal process. The disappeared trees would have been planted on private property, not public space. (See Appendices for the Landscape Master Plan and rendering from the supporting materials for the 7/21/16 Planning Commission Hearing, pdf pages 105-106, http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2014-003191drp-08.pdf.) Now that the stagger is gone and there is no place to plant trees or vines, our original concern about a 65-foot long wall and exacerbated wind effects is coming true. We feel we have been deceived, perhaps not by intent, but certainly by outcome. Is there any remedy? 4

Narrowing the pre-existing sidewalk, as well as the street, and waiving the original fence design and tree requirements are not in the best interest of the neighborhood. While reviewing this development project that concerns an entire street, why aren t the streetscape elements from the original plan and as outlined by the Better Streets Plan being implemented? Why there is no longer the ability to plant the required trees given that this was the development of an ENTIRE street of homes from an empty lot? Action we seek by the Board, one of four options: 1. Get rid of the bulb out. 2. Get rid of the bulb out and allow street trees to be planted along the stretch of sidewalk that measures between 7 and 7.5 feet wide. 3. Convince the neighbors that there is no traffic safety issue with the bulb out and allow street trees to be planted the entire length of Bernal Heights Blvd., including on the bulb out. 4. Convince the neighbors that there is no traffic safety issue with the bulb out and extend the bulb out to widen the current 7 plus- foot sidewalk to a width of 7.5 feet, enabling street trees to be planted. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Underberg 5

Appendix A American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Green Book 2011 Table: Minimum turning radii of design vehicles. Design vehicle: Single-unit truck (SU-30) Minimum design turning radius: 41.8 feet Minimum centerline turning radius: 38.0 feet Minimum inside turning radius: 28.4 feet Design vehicle: Passenger car (P) Minimum design turning radius: Minimum centerline turning radius: Minimum inside turning radius: 23.8 feet 21.0 feet 14.4 feet The turning radius assumed by a designer when investigating possible turning paths and is set at the centerline of the front axle of a vehicle. If the minimum turning path is assumed, the CTR approximately equals the minimum design turning radius minus one-half the front width of the vehicle. Centerline turning radius (CTR) The turning radius of the centerline of the front axle of a vehicle with its steering wheels at the steering lock position. Curb-to-curb turning radius The circular arc formed by the turning path radius of the front outside tire of a vehicle. Reference: Table 2-2b. Minimum Turning Radii of Design Vehicles (U.S. Customary Units), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO Greenbook, 2011 6

SFE 2 f o :LJ L.d Ct' If) U) If) CHAPivIA\ STREET DCi~BLE x w 32' 30' I 2 0 >= u t~ 0 2 0": 0 0 "" LL '5 0 f)i «9 z 0 Ct' u OJ Z (5 1Y 0 1"=50' OF BERNAL HEIGHTS STREET IMPROVEMENTS B BANKS/CHAPMAN AREA EXISTING STRIPING PLAN SPECIF!CATION NO 1145N DRAWiNG NO FilE NO. REV NO T-1