then all of a sudden there was 29 more people added
I didn't see 29 people before you go on Bernadette are you a registered RCO your
ward oh I'm sorry yes I'm a registered RCO and I'm the ward leader of the 24th ward
go ahead thank you and um I wanted proof of the 23 participating people and their address
it's PEC had it they should have sent it to me so by PEC saying yes we got it we have 23
participating people live in that area where he sent out the where chosen 300 sent out notice
no response from them to me at all. And to me, I don't know how many people Brian Jenkins
had there at Chosen 300. But I know that vote should have been taken and they should have been
counted at that time and it should have been mentioned not later when it was a surprise
all right and um the work that chosen 300 is doing feeding the people taking care of other
problems with the people i have no problems with that but i do have problems and surrounding
neighbors have problems with 40 men in a basement overnight.
Thank you.
Anything else, Ms.
At this point, that's what I'm going to focus on.
Thank you.
um do you have so there's other people on i mean my client will testify um i would read the bishop's
letter i believe there's a few other people as well um i don't have everybody's name but let's
let's have adam perlman speak and then we'll move to the others
if he could raise his hand virtually mr perlman you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
Morning. Good afternoon, Mr. Perlman. Please identify yourself with the record and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon. This is Adam Perlman, owner of 3965 Lancaster Avenue.
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Would you please spell your last name?
Perlman, P-E-A-R-L-M-A-N.
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Before he does, Mr. Perlman, the address of the property that you own is, does it abut this property?
Go ahead. Thank you.
We've, I was asked a few months ago, I think it was January of 2020, so almost two years ago,
I was asked by the bishop and the owner of the church at 4007-11 Lancaster Avenue
to hire an attorney to represent the opposition of the community against this homeless shelter.
um the community is strongly opposed to this neighboring building owners tenants
The community is strongly opposed to this.
mr mr perlman you're going to need to speak on your behalf
okay you all you own the property next door correct yes sir what is the current use of
that property? It's a 14-unit residential building. Please continue. We've been attending
a few RCO meetings here and trying to get more community involvement because the RCOs and the
applicant have not done a good job of informing the neighborhood of what they're trying to bring
here, but the tenants in my building, um, the business owners I've talked to that are
adjacent to this objection. Yep. Again, sir, not, not to be rude. You need to speak on your behalf.
We can't speak on behalf of others. Just say why, why you're opposed, uh, Mr. And what you've
observed and what you've seen? The homeless situation at the 10th and Spring Garden location
for the chosen 300. Objection, Your Honor. You need to speak to the issue on Lancaster Avenue.
If I could just clarify what he wanted to mention, there's a chosen 300 location that
operates a homeless. Well, I would just respond on the record. I understand how the board's
going to rule but he would speak to the operation of the same location by this by this applicant
if that's a it's irrelevant and b they don't they don't have overnight housing there so it's
completely irrelevant thank you besides that objection is distinct so adam just state why
you're opposed then to this use and what you what you've observed with as regard to this location
I'm concerned about the congregation of homeless people lining up every day at six o'clock
in front of my building and blocking the residential entrances for my tenants
and the neighboring buildings like I've seen at their other location.
I asked about the other location's operations and how that would relate to how this location
is going to operate, and I was told it's irrelevant, but when I drive by the other location,
And there's typically a lot of homeless people on the sidewalk.
There's usually around.
Mr. DeMarco, maybe you could assist us.
State your concerns as to why you're opposed to this location.
The chairman has sustained an objection regarding the other location.
Go ahead and do your own work.
I'm concerned about the safety and security of the tenants in my building.
I'm concerned about the intake process where they take the first 40 qualified people and reject anyone who has a history of violence or is too intoxicated to function.
I'm concerned about these people being left on the street overnight after asking to line up here, thinking that they're going to have a place to stay.
thank you anything else
adam we can't hear you um no that's my primary concern is the safety and security of
the tenants in the area the neighboring buildings tenants and businesses
thank you thank you mr perlman next witness mr chico can i ask a couple questions of mr
yeah i'm sorry sorry about that mr pressman thank you um mr perlman uh the uh the mission
of chosen 300 uh was present at the time you purchased your building is that correct
yes and so you saw people lining up every day to uh to to get meals and get services
at that location. Is that correct? No. They didn't have meals for homeless every night
when you bought the building? Not that frequently, no. Not daily? They didn't have daily meals for
individuals when you bought the building? I'm not sure. You're not sure? Mr. Perlman,
When did when did you purchase the building? February of 2018. Mr. Pressman. Thank you. And when when you went to develop your property, that the mission was there serving the homeless all through COVID-19 to the present. Is that correct?
objection i thought he wasn't they weren't operating because of covid what's what's going on
Objection. I thought he wasn't they weren't operating because of COVID.
you didn't understand the testimony i'm sorry i'll clarify it for you um the missions continued
through covid just not inside chapel uh services okay but they do line up and they do get food and
services um from the the church that's what you were cross-examining uh the applicants witnesses
on. When you developed your building, you knew Chosen 300 was there and it was serving the
homeless. Isn't that correct, Mr. Perlman? I was not aware what Chosen 300's mission was,
but once COVID hit and they started lining up people outside and blocking the entrances to my
building, I did contact 311 and L&I and was told that they're not allowed to legally congregate
and not keep six feet distances from each other and block entrances to
mr perma i don't think you're answering the question so let me ask you this and you purchased
this in 2018 from 2018 prior to covid did you ever observe people waiting in line to have meals
served uh yes a few days a week thank you mr pearl and mr pressman thank you mr chairman um and
despite that and your due diligence before you bought the building you elected to build
by that property and develop on that site objection objection that's not what he testified
to he testified that he observed that after he owned the property not while he was looking to
buy it let's get the testimony straight okay fine mr perlman did you do any due diligence before you
bought the building yes okay and as part of that due diligence did you inspect the building you
purchased in the surrounding neighborhood i purchased a vacant lot not a building and i
did observe the neighborhood i never really saw people lining up and there was never a homeless
shelter in the area what about jamie's place at 40th and mount vernon i don't know what that is
okay it's only a how far is 40th and mount vernon from your property uh we our property
touches mount vernon and 40th correct yeah okay so you're not aware of the uh the jamie's place
which is right around the corner of Mount Vernon from your property?
I've never heard of Jamie's place.
Mr. Perlman, isn't it accurate that you, as part of your project at 3965 Lancaster Avenue,
sought a variance to convert the first floor from commercial use to residential
after you built the building there, is that correct?
objection how is that relevant I wasn't what is the relevance Mr. Pressman well he's they
they object to it saying there's no hardship Mr. DeMarco has spent a fair amount of time
representing Sam in this case making the case that there's no hardship granting a variance
yet that's exactly what his client sought and received from this board but my client's not
asking for a variance I don't yeah I don't think it's relevant this thing
So, Mr. Perlman, you said you don't know what their intake process is. Are you aware that the applicant, Mr. Jenkins, submitted a letter in response to the objections from the RCOs and submitted it to the Zoning Board back in June of 2021?
I've heard the intake process described by Mr. Jenkins a couple different ways.
that's not the question I asked you sir are you aware that he put a written statement in
in response to objections back in June of 2021 specifically addressing the issues you're concerned
about including the intake process that he's willing to abide by as part of this project
to move forward are you aware of that sir well objections you answered but go ahead if you can
Does the intake process description that he submitted say how they're going to help people that they're rejecting and leaving on the street?
The intake process is in writing, and it talks about selecting people that are prepared to transition, sir.
If someone's coming for a meal, they're already coming to the facility, irregardless of the housing.
So they're already on the street in your neighborhood.
so it's not a question of being rejected the people that are selected are based upon the
criteria that they set forth did you have an opportunity to read his written response
i'm not sure you never asked your counsel for it
I'm not sure.
You never asked your counsel for it.
Objection?
Privilege?
It's a yes or no.
Getting a privilege.
He's getting in my communication with my client.
Can't do that.
It's unethical.
I mean, you can ask him if he's seen a letter.
He can't ask what I said or did with him.
That's completely improper, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perlman said he's not.
You can ask whether you've had a communication.
It's the substance of the communication that's privileged, sir.
So I'll ask again, Mr. Perlman, did you ever request from anyone, including counsel, to get a copy of Mr. Jenkins' response to the objections that were raised at these meetings with regards to how the program was going to be run that was submitted to Councilman Gutierre's office back in June of 2021?
I'll object, Mr. Chairman.
Was that submitted after the RCO meeting?
Do you know the dates of the meetings?
Yes. In the June 2021 meeting. Yes. He wrote a written response. Are you aware of that, sir?
So after he described his intake process, he changed it from the RCO meeting?
I'm not here to answer questions, sir.
That's not the question. Are you aware of that?
He is answering. He is answering, Mr. Chairman. He's answering.
I'm saying it keeps changing.
At the RCO meeting, we were supposed to be presented the final plan, and now there's a different intake process?
Sir, I'm not here to answer your questions. The question I asked you that I'd like for you to respond to is, did you become aware that he filed a response in face of the objections that were received at the June 2021 RCO meeting afterwards that when letters came in objecting, he addressed those concerns? Are you aware of that?
objection number one this is here's a hearsay letter sent to someone else other than Mr.
Perlman if he wants to ask him whether Mr. Perlman got a letter or whether he's aware of it sir
Mr. Perlman answer the question are you aware of that letter sir I don't know what letter
you're talking about and you never asked for any of the responses from the applicant
Objection. Asked and answered. No, you objected. Not aware of the letter. Objection.
He's unaware of the letter. We'll sustain that objection.
I don't know how difficult it is in up and down question. Yes or no. But he just answered. He's not aware of it.
He's not aware of it because he doesn't want to be. That's fine. Objection. Objection argument.
All right. Objections. No more arguments, folks. Let's go.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions, please.
Mr. DeMarco, anyone else? Something new and different.
Yeah, Mr. Perlman's finished. Chairman Yakubov, if you could raise your virtual hand.
Mr. Yakubov, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yakubov, please spell your full name and I swear you in.
German Yakubov, G-E-R-M-A-N, Yakubov, Y-A-K-U-B-O-V.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do so affirm.
Thank you. Before you begin, I just got noticed we have a hard stop at 1230 p.m.
So I'll just ask Mr. Yakubov to state his relationship to the property and state why he's opposed in his own words.
Thank you.
Thanks. Good morning. So we own about 20 properties within two blocks, the closest one being 3930 Haverford Avenue, which is a stone's throw away.
our headquarters is located one block away at 39th and Haverford. We've been in the neighborhood for
about 15 years. We've seen the neighborhood change and we appreciate the work that Chosen
300 does. However, this specific project, housing 40 people in a basement, is not something that
our tenants want, nor do we want. They keep referencing Janie's Place. Janie's Place is
one block away on, I think it's 40th and Mount Vernon, and it's a 17-unit apartment building
that's designed for temporary shelter that's ran by People's Emergency Center. It is in no way
comparable to having 40 people in a basement. I've been before this board as a developer many a time,
And every single time I proposed one unit in the basement, I've been denied and there have been provisos that have limited our development to having no living space in the basement.
development to having no living space in the basement to have 40 people in the basement with
To have 40 people.
two bathrooms is is not only unreasonable it is a safety issue and and it can it adds to the trash
that's that's that we pay people regularly weekly to constantly clean up up and down lancaster avenue
as well as haverford avenue so the the fact that they want to sugarcoat this as much as they want
The reality is there are 40 people that are going to be sleeping at night that have to wake up in the morning and leave.
And then that same night, come back again and stay the night in the basement with two small exits that are more than halfway below the ground, below the grave.
So what they want to do is admirable.
It's just not admirable in this building.
you know and the the if they want to use the comparison to jamie's place which was built with
the intent of a housing shelter which was built with with the proper amount of bathrooms the
proper amount of exits and not 40 people in the basement that's fine it's just not if for this
building for this existing structure that was built as a bank more than 100 years ago they
want to use it as a church by all means use it as a church but do not have an overuse of this
building and not only is it an overuse it is an unsafe overuse of having again 40 people in a
basement and it runs contrary to what this board has time and again issued provisos on into regular
development into regular developments whether the building was new construction or existing
So I would urge this board to deny this variance request because it is not a true hardship that the hardship lies within the neighboring properties.
We house over 100 people within two blocks away. The majority of them all oppose such use in this building.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeMarco, anyone else or Mr. Pressman. I'm sorry, do you have any. Oh, yeah, cross. I have no no cross of this witness.
thank you mr chairman gwen lewis if she's available please raise your virtual hand
you see a gwen lewis