there have been a lot of important points brought up today, not the least of which is the dire need for housing in san francisco specifically below market rate housing, and i'm excited that this project addresses that, but i want to talk to you about our experience at illuminate as a partner to tidewater. some of you may be familiar that illuminate is the organization behind the creation of the bay lights project. as soon as those lights went on-line, we turned our attention to our next project, which was a two mile project up and down market street. and as a nonprofit that struggles to stay funded, doesn't even have an office, we were desperate for some space on market -- on market street so that we could show off our next project. we were fortunate to be introduced to craig young and tidewater who were just in the early stages of arthur projeth

at 1028 market street. they were busy creating an incredible space on the first floor called the hall, and other speakers have referred to that. it was really a remarkable place for the community. what craig and his crew did was donated the second floor of that building to illuminate. so for over a year, we were able to use that space, convert it into a demonstration space so that we could bring another art project on-line into san francisco, public art project. our success is directly related to their generosity, and so i can speak specifically to that, but i can also talk about what we saw on a regular basis happening down stairs. tidewater is a partner to the community. i've been in the nonprofit world for nearly two decades, including running community programs for the warriors, raising funds for the be good .

tidewater representatives have been a if he nom knowledge job of outreaching to local residents and organizations. craig young and his partners have attended our local neighborhood association meetings on a regular basis for a long time. again, another great effort at being a good neighbor. they had shadow studies done to show that court side's lobby

would not be adversely affected. and yes, i have to clean that black dust off my screens and my furniture every day. it's already that way. i believe that tidewater commissioned an environmental study that shows that their project would not have an adver adverse effect on the air quality. this block needs new life and vibrancy. tidewater's project would do just that. i urge you to approve this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. mr. williams. >> thank you. good afternoon. steve williams on behalf of some of the concerned homeowners next door. bay crest was designed to give back to the community and provide open space, and that's the way it was designed. that's what we're talking about right there, a solid wall right across that. it provides 44% more open space

than what was required when it was built. there's also a public open space there, a privately maintained but open to the public, so you have to ask, how the heck could this design be approved that will completely shadow not only bay crest and its three open courtyards, including the public open space. well, the answer is, the design was not approved by the department. when the project, this same project was submitted back to the department in 2015 at the preliminary project assessment, the department stated that the design should mirror the massing of bay crest and relate to these courtyards, and i've submitted that as exhibit two. two years later, they came back with the same design, in 2016. guess what? the department again said no, and that is exhibit two. in the specific notice, the planning department request number one that went out to the

developers on june

part is what happens on the east side. making sure that that flows into the city to the water front has been an important piece. and there's been folks and staff at various options were looked at as far as rotating the building mass and such and this

is one that gets the most amount of benefits and number of units given the shape of the lot. it is as of right now and so i'm supportive of that. as far as the air quality have you to be honest it's under the bay bridge along with the neighboring buildings. i think that's an existing condition. i have a hard time believing the new building would make it worse and i sympathize for the neighbors there and the filter gentlemen but i think it's an existing condition you've probably lived with. it's a question of buyer beware. with the views that are not protected with windows and the air quality existing before you got there. the site is rich and i'll

support it

[technical difficulties] -- we continue to maintain the position because of the decision made by the board of supervisors in 2009. back then the project's cpe was appealed and obviously the board of supervisors overturned the planning commission's approval of the project but the board of supervisors directed the department to study three specific things they felt were not sufficiently studied and that being air quality and greenhouse gases and shade. for this time around, obviously since that project was abandoned right after that decision was made the department did not move forward with the studies so basically what we've done is picked up where we left off with

this project. so the departments c.p.e. and initial study analyzed in detail those three specific things mandate the board of supervisors. we do have staff from the department's environmental planning division here to answer any specific questions about the air quality analysis and things like that. i think as part of the review process we need to make sure a project needs to be code compliant. if we look at conditions today baycrest when exposed to sun and if the project were to be built

according to our measurements and bay crest can confirm whether i'm grossly wrong or not. the dimensions of their interior courtyard measure about 70 fex 0 and given the size of the project, that project, bay crest, would meet today's planning code requirements for open space. i think it's important to consider that and obviously the department has been in constant contact with the bay crest community since the project began and we're obviously very sympathetic to their concerns but wa we have to do was look at look at the benefits of the project relative to the impact and with regard to the urban design guideline. technically the project isn't

subject because the guidelines don't go into effect until april but it's a relative issue and looking at it the urban design guidelines adopted last week contain 24 specific goals. and it's virtually impossible for every single project to meet every single goal. i think we need to sort of analyze the project based upon the comprehensive goals and policies that are in the u.d.g. and with this particular project there may be some goals where the project may not excel but i think looking at it in whole i think the benefits outweigh the minor impacts for the project. >> good afternoon. jessica range, planning staff

with the environmental division. we did conduct an analysis of the air quality impact in the courtyard without the building and with the proposed building and the results are in your c.p.e., specifically table 5 and the west courtyard would experience a reduction in the particulate matters and the central and east courtyards would experience an increase but it's well below the threshold the city has and the thresholds are more stringent, lower than the air district's own threshold. and in regards to the air quality report it was both reviewed and scoped with staff at the air district. any further questions? thank you. >> commissioner: commissioner

koppel. >> we do need housing. this is a large opportunity site. there's a couple things i can't ignore. i can't ignore the testimony from the bay crest residents or what steven williams brought forth today. we approved a project earlier today that at first glance blocked what is not just a light well but a courtyard light well. so i'm looking at page 23 of these drawings and i'm trying to get a vision of the perspective looking down on this and a can't get around the fact that i think this building should be flipped 180 degrees and mirror that courtyard. again, i'm listening to the residents that live next door. i can't ignore them. i do want to see the project. i would like to see more v.m.r.s. i'd like to support higher level v.m.i.s, anything to get the

project feasible. i'm not trying to shoot this one down, but just looking at this project, i'd be in favor of it if it was flipped around and mirrored the existing courtyard. >> commissioner: commissioner richards. >> this is probably one of the hardest ones i've had in nearly four years. i agree with commissioner koppel and i agree with a lot of things and we hear these projects week in and week out and if it's not you or you or you we have somebody somewhere else and we sit through the public comment, we put it through the public policy lens and take your opinions and public testimony and we are able to -- i think good decisions and balance

everybody's needs. this building does cause an impact. i agree we need more housing here. i think it's a great place to build it. i think the tide water folks are wonderful people bep had a project at 1028 market and fabulous people. i think there's fault what i'd say false trade-off. i don't agree with commissioner koppel and the building being flipped around but i don't believe the current structure as-is meets what i would call downtown project authorization the commission my grant exceptions for projects of outstanding overall design and complimentary so the design and values of the surrounding area. the project doesn't do that. i'm sorry, it doesn't. regarding the urban design

guidelines i laid awake last night reading them and thinking about them, even if we got away from the urban design guidelines we have plan code guidelines that we're not add hearing to and that has the force of law. and respect to open-space corridors and block of light and air nor block views of adjacent buildings. the height and bulk should be designed to maximize sunlight to open space and major pedestrians corridors and that includes popss. i can't support the design as-is. i can support a two-tower concept and support a rezoning to allow for more height to maximize the number of units but still achieve the public policy goal of connecting the two courtyards and putting as much as housing in there?

how would i do that? there's been accusations and it's based on a feasibility study based on true financial data with peer review. if we need to make up for the units that are lost because we want two towers, let's look at the numbers and see how high we have to go and let's make decisions on the height. >> >> commissioner: i want to follow-up with environmental planning staff. just the idea on the air quality of the courtyard and central courtyard. so how is that measured with the building. what causes that increase? >> good question. we have a computational fluid dynamic model. it's not how we do traditional

ceqa analysis. it's meant to address the concerns address with the previous project and it takes into account the wind pattern and a lot of more accurately than the traditional model approved by the echltd p.a. and approved by the e.p.a. and what was the question? >> commissioner: how you modelled it and what causes that. sit a lack of air flow? >> just as the folks have pointed out you are putting the building that can -- it changes the patterns. that's why you see in the west courtyard you see a decrease but then in the central and east courtyard you see an increase because of the various air flow patd -- patterns.

>> commissioner: in percentage of increase, can you qualify that. you have the numbers in the chart but -- >> so we're talking about the east courtyard -- >> commissioner: the central courtyard. >> okay. the increase there is .031 micrograms per cubic meter and the threshold the city established is .2. and if you would like to have a greater understanding of what that means, the clean air act and the federal clean air act both establish a pm .25 standard of 12. that includes background levels and everything. so the .2 threshold is the project's contribution to that overall amount.

>> commissioner: okay. thank you. and in the design -- and i appreciate your presentation, but so if bay quest were to be built today, you mentioned that that courtyard was how large? >> 75 x 110. >> commissioner: i imagine -- the proposal would block the 75 feet on one side. it's the short side. >> if the proposal were built the short side would be 75. >> commissioner: you'd have a wall with a five-foot set back and add five more feet to the courtyard for open space. mentioned something, i thought was interesting, if it were built today and the planning

department would measure the composure would you look at the buildings on either side? would you consider a presumed building? >> no, when we look at compliance with exposure we verified there's at least one building that meets certain specifications by the billing department and faces an open area that has to be at least 25 feet at the ground floor and then that has to increase by five feet for every additional floor above that. for bay crest given they have a parking level podium. basically they're courtyard is above the podium and where their living units are. if we take those numbers and we calculate them, they could need to have a courtyard that is at least 75 feet in every

horizontal direction in order to comply with the current standard for the planning code. their courtyard measures 75 x 110 so it would still be in compliance with the department's exposure requirement. >> commissioner: all right. i think -- i agree with folks here. this is going to be an impact on the residence of bay crest. there's no doubt. whether it rises to the health impact that i think we heard articulated today, i think what we're hearing from the department and we're not experts on this but we have to rely on the data, we think the department as an objective thirty -- third-party projection rise to that level with the air quality issues the project wouldn't increase it in a significant way. we need to take them off the table and the next issue is is

this project designed in a way that's most neighborly. we should look at something like this two-tower alternative but i think it's been years in the making this project and a get this hasn't really changed from the first time it was proposed and i think for a lot of reasons. i think one issue that ta mitigates it for me and leads me to be more supportive of this is the usual size of the open space that bay crest already enjoys. we did just approve this project. it has small open space. fit was built today with the new proposal it would meet all the requirements in the exposures which we rarely see in the project. we generally will approve projects that every unit does and meets the exposure requirements because we recognize it's a dense urban

environment and we're trying to fit that. so i'm not quite convinced that we should reject the proposal. i'd like to find ways to make it more neighborly but i'm hard pressed to do that. commissioner koppel your idea to flip it say good one but it leads to units on the ground unit that will never work. and it's daunting to the next door building. one question i want to ask is to the architect, can you come up for a minute and put up -- if you give me a level 7 or 6 floor plan if there's one on the overhead.

>> commissioner: so the two-bedroom unit in the middle, just kind of a simple question which you'll tell me why it's wrong probably but say you took three of those units out from the top three floors and had a notch in this building that

allowed some light and air to get through. it's a significant amount for the courtyard at bay crest, why isn't that feasible? >> that will essentially at the moment you can see a staircase on this side and this side and one elevator bank so national nationally -- essentially one vertical core. as soon as you take a piece out unless the core connects you'd be forcing an addition staircase and potentially an addition elevator. you're creating a two-tower scheme but on the top floor. >> commissioner: so might as well put an elevator on the other side. >> you need an additional stair and elevator. >> commissioner: and one you could make it up potentially with filling in where you come off main and beale, which i think is a product of the rincon

hill design and you have the setback 10 feet which is meant for a tower and i think your design on main and beale is better if that building were entirely on the street front all the way up. you're kind of -- the design on the lower floor. i know you can't do it it's against code but your design and the facade of those units and it turned into a black -- blank wall. i get that's the point but taking out two of the three-bedroom units. could have an open corridor where that is? as long as you made the connection it wouldn't retire -- require it but you'd lose

units in that case. case. it's similar to the scheme which was studied trying to keep the openness but not have the added staircases. you end up with the amount of enclosure for the space you have becomes relatively expensive. >> commissioner: on this scenario. >> it would be a hybrid. and the upper floor would have the impact of the scheme. >> commissioner: i'm saying on the top three floors lose three units and have an open -- and again, there's a balance between losing units and being

neighborly to that open space. i think that's all i'm trying to look for is explore options of are we being the most neighborly without diminishing too many units building. i think that courtyard's sizable. it's bigger than what we would normally -- more than we would ever see now the way it was built with the setback off the streets and it's not a design we would propose currently. we'd have a build an s'more courtyard a we'd have a building with a smaller courtyard and it's about ways to be more neighborly. >> my moment was when i looked at the overahead map, this tall

tower to the west is how high? >> which building? >> commissioner: if you look at the triangular blue where your pencil is and keep going to the west. right there. >> the tower portion is 240.

>> it's approximately 120 feet. 180 feet. >> commissioner: and bay crest is what, 135? >> thereabouts, yeah. and the other building? >> commissioner: across bay street. >> maybe 130. >> commissioner: though there's a lot of issues with if we do the two tower we'll mess with the people on this side, they're already looking at 120 or 150-foot building looking this way. why can't we build the two towers to at least the height of the bay crest or higher? >> the problem is zoning to start with. this was approved by the board of supervisors for a certain height. >> commissioner: project sponsors can request a rezoning. >> they don't too because it

shows your flaunting the most important rule in the planning coat. i hear you but it's the last resort and it take it out of the plan the project is designed to be consistent with the rincon hill plan and when you start rezoning in an area to taper down a height -- >> commissioner: i sat in yesterday and he said they're going to taper down and a looked at said it does taper down but look at this. it tapers down even with an increase in height. >> we went through the scenario and the planning department said no. they don't want to process it. that's why we're here. we could have started a much more robust process for a very big effort but we're designing to the zoning.

>> commissioner: you were saying there's some requirement that things get recorded when there's a pushback and we have a project sponsor saying they wanted to do two towers. that's what i heard the planning department said no, we want you to do -- i'm looking at all the data and they said they wanted you to do two towers. >> they could design it as two towers. that's not a problem. they're saying there's no profitability there and that's not a design consideration but if you look at the code section 309.1, it has a specific procedure in it that is supposed to explore the pushback on design considerations. we're supposed to have a report from the director in our hand now that says the project sponsor didn't want to comply with x. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. director rahm. that specific item he's talk about is if we literally did not

support the design. we obviously recommended approval of that design so it's a moot point. i think the other thing to mention is we do have a concern with a plan that's only a few years old to change the plan. i think that's correct. just like we don't sort of haphazardly change the other neighborhood plans that we have put forward because we're concerned adopting a plan should -- we're changing it -- we're looking at several blocks of the hub at an intersection as a one-million change not a whole parcel change. i get your point and it's up against the bay bridge and from an urban design standpoint we preferred the two-tower scheme but as we went in this motion we met behind closed doors. we have lots of meetings we meet with people on, come upon but the two-tower scheme requires

two elevators and two stair towerses at each -- towers. the notion we could do two towers that are higher -- the scheme presented was higher than we'd be comfortable with but there say reluctance to reopen a plan and change it on one parcel. that's my concern. >> commissioner: commissioner fong. >> i'm going to try to make a mome motion to approve. i'm not sure where we are. i agree with commissioner richards the obvious thing is to try to get more hype but i don't think it's a good idea we spot zone parcels because it make it

inconsistent and you are chasing s.u.d.s and special zoning changes. with i'm going to make a motion to approve the project. >> second. >> commissioner: shall i call the question? >> yes. >> commissioner: on the motion to approve with conditions. commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner: commissioner richards. >> no. >> commissioner: the motion fails 3-2. >> is there an alternate motion? >> move to continue with the direction to have staff work with the project sponsor on a two-tower scheme in conjunction with potentially the supervisors office and see what it would take to keep the name number of units but increase the height. >> commissioner: what about the notion of carving out units?

if they're concerned about air flow and air quality, i think that would do it. >> commissioner: it didn't have to be a 100% match. >> second -- >> commissioner: i can't make a motion. oh, you're continuing. all right. >> the clerk: for how long? >> commissioner: a couple months. >> commissioner: it depends if year looking at alternatives within the zoning envelope or -- >> commissioner: in some respects we'd like to be back as quickly as possible because i looked at this and i don't think it works. >> if we took the units at the top it would potentially increase the light but the circulation would still be a

wall and the net result would be -- >> commissioner: what if you had -- we've seen in other projects where it's open walkways. covered but open walkways. if you took the three two-unit top four, two bedrooms out and just did more transparent opening or walkway. i think there was one in the tenderloin you'd have a notch in the building but with three pathways going across to the other unit. if the concern the neighbors have is circulation, that would get air in the space and light in the space in a neighborly gesture with trying to lose a minimum amount of units. >> the air circulation would be in close proximity to the bridge. >> commissioner: you'd only used it if you lived on one side of

the top three floors. it could be covered. the seventh floor could be covered by the eighth floor and you'd presumably have a cover but open to allow for -- and we did it in the tenderloin where we had a secondary building behind the first to provide some circulation to the rear building. again, i think it's an appropriate project give jon given the size of the courtyard but trying to be neighborly and going to a zoning change is, i think, dramatic. >> project sponsor craig young, the idea of a bridge has been explored and an appreciate where you're coming from in trying to

alleviate the concerns of the neighbor here but the challenge is in the two-tower scheme the challenge is the requirement for an addition elevator and any additional -- >> commissioner: it wouldn't be a two-tower scheme. >> i'm describing where it would go to your point. if we take a notch from the center and you have a second tower veep even on one floor you need the elevator access. >> commissioner: i'm not saying that. >> you're saying just leave the corridor. so if we take out a unit and put an corridor with glass that's translucent, we can do that. >> commissioner: i think you should look at that.

it will be good to explore that. >> we can't do the zoning height -- >> commissioner: it would be going back and renoticing and having a whole -- it would be -- you have to tart -- start from scratch. >> commissioner: we'd have to reopen ceqa as well. >> commissioner: but it would help understand the process and would provide some -- >> and is the direction to study this notch out with a connection? >> commissioner: i think both of those options were proposed. >> thank you. >> commissioner: okay. very good. commissioners, the soonest i would recommend you continue this given your current advanced calendar is may 10, two months out would be may 24. veryoo