community want to build a great big 100 foot wall right up against my air flow, and this is my air flow at present. and what's more, they are fools because what my colleague was trying to show you and ran out of time, also showed they're increasing the particulate matter in their own space. there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. >> president hillis: thank you. >> this is how it stands, and that's how it should be. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is gary winter approxima. i am a resident of the bay crest building, long-term owner and resident, and i oppose the 430 main project as proposed. you know i -- i tell my friends that there's going to be a

building that's going to be put up 5 feet away from our building, and uniformly without exception, they say, are they crazy? i mean, it may be legal, but i want to comment to the -- to the architect, who was that? yeah, sir. you pointed out that, well, gee, we're not covering your windows. they're going to be 5 feet away. is that supposed to make me feel better? and if -- they had lots of meetings, lots of community meetings, but -- you know, lots, but have they listened? have they changed the plans for the courtyard? no. they say that they're going to include us in the courtyard

design moving onward. they sure haven't done a good job about that so far. so please take this into consideration, and on an aside, long live city college of san francisco, an amazing resource. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is rihanna miranda, and i've been a proud bay crest homeowner for the past five years. i'm here today to let you know that i am in support of a thorough, unbiased environmental review of the project and formally request that the items brought forward by the committee of public housing, including the bay crest residents that you've

listened to today receive serious consideration to protect the residents of bay crest and the surrounding community. thank you for your consideration. >> good afternoon, commission. my name is george disciatis. i'd just like to speak to my time working an inordinate amount of time at 1026 market street, also another tidewater building. as somebody what's spent a lot of time there in a building that is very similar to the current building on the site, i've just seen the personal benefits of having activation and street traffic in that area and making use of that space, and i've seen personally the -- the tidewater's involvement in communicating the plans for that site and for that process going on, and then seeing their

investment in that specific community there. i just want to speak to my personal experience as an artist working there over the past 1.5 years, and i can't speak to the current site, as well, but that's my experience with 1026 market street, and with tidewater, and seeing how that's been handled and invested over the past several years. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm joe keenan, m.d. i'm a psychiatrist. i'm also a member of back on my feet and code tenderloin. what we do is help people become the workers of this district. they're t right now, we don't have filters, we do have inhalers.

i feel for you. i wouldn't want a building like yours going in next door. the second development company, they come up with the same proposal, they don't want to spin their wheels, either, i'm sure. these guys, i know that they have been great supporters of organizations that -- that i love, like code tenderloin. and, you know, i want workers to be able to support this city, to have a place to live, i hate the particulate matters, but we need spaces for our workers to live. >> president hillis: thank you. i'll call other names.

>> as luck would have it, i'm the first name. andrew scott. i am in support of the project. i live and work in san francisco. i recently relocated my office from the financial district to 375 beale, which is on the block. we brought 60 employees, and only two of them drive, so we brought economic benefit without bringing traffic. upon moving, i was struck that the area has not achieved critical mass. i think the project will bring the diverse residents in the commercial spaces and active ate the streets. i believe this project will bring the type of residents, not that will drive, but will walk, bike and transit to work. additionally i was at the chamber of commerce recently and heard a presentation about a $6 billion unfunded liability

to address our seawall. we need to bring economic activity and stakeholders to the waterfront. i think this project does that. i'm also an engineer. i specialize in existing buildings and their problems. i certainly appreciate the problems that the adjacent neighbors are dealing with, and thea with the filter, that indicates to me there is already a problem to their building. they need a modern solution to their air quality problems, and this project will do the same. i think this project addresses multiple needs, and i encourage the commission to support it. thank you. >> vice president richards: thank you, next speaker, please. >> a couple of the comments. we talk about value or increased use of the land. it's currently a warehouse. it is not nearly a utility that

we could get out of housing. another thing i want to point out, from an environmental perspective, we are well aware that dense urban in-fill housing getting people out of their cars is the best path forward for our planet and with a pending central soma plan, this is where future employees will live. want to spend the rest of my time from rebecca peacock who was an organizer in the community. i'm a coorganizer with the new soma coalition. i support this project and urge the planning commission to entitle it as recommended by the planning department. unfortunately i cannot be here today in person. she's watching and live tweeting approximate, i'm sure. to give comment because i work during the day because i need to be on-site at my office, and it's a real shame because i would love to participate in the public process to speak out for more housing in my neighborhood. i have many friends who would be here today if not for the same constraints. as for the project, 430 main is exactly the type of development

we need in this area in the midst of the housing crisis. the surrounding area is not a complete neighborhood but it could be with more resident dos. tidewater will bring in more people and jobs created for the soma plan. my husband and i have been residents of san francisco since april of last year. we love this city and want to continue to live here. we hope to raise children here someday. i worry almost daily about the state of this housing shortage. it's easy to give up hope, but when i see projects like 430 main street, i do feel hopeful again. i can see my family making a life here. i can see my friends staying in the area instead of leaving the state. i want more projects like this so that everyone can have a

home like us, the city of st. francis. please approve this project as soon as possible. >> vice president richards: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david hatfield. i'm representing a nonprofit in the city called illuminate. 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