doesn't make any sense. these should be -- the public should be able to look at a building and kind of understand that it's a demo, or not, and it's not clear. the public brought up a building that you can see through, but it's not a demoby anybody's definitions. that just doesn't work. it hassto pass a logic test, and i don't think they do. most planning staff and dbi staff have starts down paths. i've heard comments from commissioners that can make that definition a lot easier. the difficulty is when do we discourage demolition or when do we say it's okay to demo a building? we certainly want to discourage it when it's a historic resource and it fits in the neighborhood character. we want to discourage it when

it's rent controlled. we've kind of uncovered buildings that are rent controlled that weren't in the plans or understood to be rent controlled, so we want to discourage those. but i think when we did during the much maligned residential expansion threshold, we actually tried to encourage demolition of nonsignificant nonhistoric buildings where you could build more units, where you could building a two unit building where there's a nonsignificant single-family home or build a three unit building. i think we should still do that. i think we should densify because that's going to be the affordable housing stock of the future. so i think there's elements of r.a.t. that we should pull back into this discussion. i agree that we need one

definition of demo. there's too much gray area amongst this. i agree with miss sciutis. it'll be interesting to hear why you think there should be two definitions of demo, but i think one would be more consistent with enforcement, and for setting forward policy goals. so i agree with everything that's been set out in enforcement and penalties, and we should set a timeline to meet, whether it's a couple months to meet from now or less when we hear back from the group that's working on these issues, 'cause i know supervisor peskin's been on it also and look to staff kind of come back, hold public meetings on this, get further input from those that have come here, those that haven't to testify on this issue and come back with real solutions, so thank you all for coming back and taking the time to do this, our

fellow dbi commissioners, my commissioners, but mostly the public that have come and the staroom, and i

s see gallagher is here. you know she means it when she talks. i'm surprised sue hester sisn' here. there was one particular speaker i felt was more interested in creating facts that didn't exist and was more interested in staying in the turmoiled times that we're in,

but everybody else was in tune with whether you like it or dislike it, we need to do something. trust is the word that was used, and it was used there by mary. i think the trust is broken, and i think we have an opportunity to address it here and fix it. i have some comments here, and i apologize if i'm repeating myself, but the planning code and the building code are in conflict. we all agree in that, and with one another, and they create a series of cruise confusing and frustrating -- of confusing and frustrating incidents for our neighbors. the planning code section 317, it is confusing. it's labor intensive, and particularly to the planners, and for them to implement. i think we've seen that in the presentations here today. there is often confusion in the field with the contractors and dbi inspectors trying to address, for example, the dry rot, waterproofing, and other

random unexpected field conditions while a hearing to the current demopolicy planning code of 317, and that was brought out, i think particularly in the structural presentation here today. what it does is, to me, in my opinion is it creates many judgment calls for dbi inspectors who are stuck balancing 317 with other portions of the building code, and i think that's something we need to help them out with, and i know there are some building inspectors that feel very strongly. some have ten, 15, 20 years in the field dealing with this. neighbors don't ubds the difference between a demoand an alteration, and it's not their fault. it's just that complicated. we need to do more, excuse me, user friendly transparent system to establish the difference, and i'm hoping in our working groups that that will come out of that. demo versus alteration and the planning process.

currently, there are two very different processes for these two types of projects. there is the market incentive to be an operation, which i think is apparent on some of the projects to be in trouble. if a project starts out as an alteration but due to some unexpected field conditions become a demolition, there can be belong delays in the process, and the project sponsor will need to start the process all over again, and it just doesn't make sense. i'm big on the current penalty system is restrictive. it's not transparent to the public, and it doesn't adequately address misrepresentation of plans which we've talked about here today. it's a big one, and it's a big one in my book. projects demoed beyond the scope of work but demoing what is not considered demolition. a project sponsor who chooses to illegally demolition a

certain domain. it's certainly been in the papers, and there's a few bad actors out there, and they need to be addressed. the professional design teams must conduct themselves in a very high standard, and those who work -- [ inaudible ]. >> -- to be punished. i would -- at this stage, i mean, i think to commissioner hillis's point, that i think we should -- both our directors, i know director hui, if we could put a work group together and work on some solutions and answers to this hearing today, and i don't know the time frame. i'd lean towards staff, is it two to three months that they'd need for something like this. but i also think it's important to capture what supervisor peskin is trying to did a as well legislatively so that as we could in a timely fashion

give some language that ecowork and legislatively push this through the system and so we could put this to bed once and for all, start out fresh and see how we do with a new policy and get one that goes where it needs to go. >> just to answer your question, three months would be a good starting point to look at a first stab at a proposal. i think it would be helpful to have representation from the two commissions, working with supervisor peskin's avenueoffi think we could have something before our office goes on recess in august. >> president hillis: i think that would work. sometimes we throw out like a committee or a blue ribbon panel or something like this, which isn't going to solve it on its own. we've got processes where we solicit comments from everyone who has stake in this to really

kind of formulate and start floating ideas. again i wouldn't wait three months to come back and present those ideas. i think we're encouraging to go out and talk through solutions, to community groups or having meetings at the department to we get responses and start to get some of that feedback and come back with something that we can continue to evolved. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: at what time are we dpg to soob our two computer systems be integrated, because i i this it would be a helpful tool to expedite the process? [ inaudible ] >> september. >> and i was to strent to stre commissioner walker said that. i did not say that. i understand go live day for a fellow with dbi to be september

4th. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just to reiterate, i think we need to make sure whatever we come up with, we need to have the rent board's opinion, the dbi opinion, because there is a tax, so that they're tuned into this as well as well as the city attorney for potential state law stuff. >> president hillis: any other comment, director ram or director hui? >> just to thank everybody for coming. there was one idea thrown out that commissioner melg talked about, ju -- melgar talked about, i think that director hui talked about taking that job. but thank you all for your comments today, and i think we'll organize the hearing within the time frame you talked about, probably this summer. >> president hillis: thank you.

and certainly we can be updated as this moves along. we can hold an informational at the planning commission to get an update where things are. dbi can do the same, so we look forward to that. >> yeah. i look forward to workforce between our department and planning. and we can give you any drafts or welcome one to two commissioners want to join us to how to discuss. we have little bit idea how to do it, but right now, after the hearing, we heard about the rent board situation and all those, i'm going to engage them into our equation. >> president hillis: great. lr all right. thank you very much. >> commissioner mccarthy: no, thank you, everybody. thank you commissioners. look forward to it. .

>> hi, i'm frank jorge golden go up a utility supervisor for the distribution system i offer seizing see the personnel that install water maidens and water carbon monoxides i've personal

proud to work with city and distribution place whether a fire or main break those folks come on scene and get the job done 3450r7b9 what time they're here to take care of each other and make it so a safe and secure way i was encouraged to learn to deal with the services and breaks and i wanted to move into understanding how to do main connections one the great things that the sfpuc to move to different sections in if you're tdr in learning a different job you have the ability to move up i courage anyone to step out of their comfortable zone and work on a system as large as a our water system we started from one end and keep on going it's a

fascinating job and i'm going to stay here because i'll never learn everything to learn about this system >> clerk: please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: we do expect commissioners melgar and richards shortly. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item number one. [agenda item read].

>> clerk: item 2. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: item three. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: further, commissioners, under your regular calendar, we just received a request from a project sponsor for item 14. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: for a continuance to may 17. i have no other items proposed for continuance, and i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: so it's just on the alvarado item? >> clerk: yes. >> president hillis: dbi has that calendar, also? >> clerk: that's correct. they just added that item, the demolition aspect, to their may

2nd or 3rd calendar. >> president hillis: all right. so i just want to make sure -- hold on. hold on. i will take public comment. i just wanted to make sure our proposed day will give us enough time to conclude what dbi will considerate their hearing. >> clerk: we can give it more time if you want to give it more time. >> president hillis: all right. we'll take public comment. now is the time to make public comment on the items be propose proposed f ed for continuance. >> okay. do i have to agree with the continuance? >> okay. >> president hillis: we're not deciding on the project, we were deciding whether to continue it or not. >> i was hoping you would hear it so that it wouldn't be continued. that's all.

>> president hillis: now's your time to state that rational for it, but not on the project, just on the continuance. all right go grab your papers. we'll take the next -- >> all right. i would like it to be continued. >> president hillis: which item, ma'am. >> all of them, really. all of them, really. >> president hillis: are you here for a specific item, though? >> what? >> president hillis: are you here for a specific item? >> no. is this the meeting that was posted about the million dollar budget for the homeless? is this the meeting? >> clerk: no. i think you've got the wrong hearing room. >> they told me the wrong meeting. so where's that meeting at? >> clerk: no idea, ma'am. >> it's on the second floor. >> clerk: i don't know, ma'am. >> on the second floor, to your right or to your left? >> not exactly sure. >> not exactly sure? >> president hillis: okay. any further public comment on the items be proposed for a continuance? the other -- the other mic, the other mic. >> i'm sorry for the confusion.

i disagree to the continuance. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> okay. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: move to continue items one, two, three as noted and item 14 to the data's suggested may 24, 2018. >> second. >> commissioner richards: so item 14 was may 24th? >> president hillis: yes, and dbi was scheduled to hold their hearing, i think may 3rd, so that gives us enough time. >> clerk: if there's nothing further commissioners, there's a motion and a second to continue items as proposed to may 24. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 5-1, with commissioner richards voting

against. commissioners, that will place us under your consent calendar for item four. all matters listed here under are considered a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no further discussion unless a commissioner or matter of the public requests the item be removed from the consent calendar. [agenda item read]. >> president hillis: thanks, jonas. any public comment on 155 brannan street? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards: motion to approve item four. >> second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. on that motion, to approve consent calendar item number

four -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and places us on item five under commission matters, commission comments and questions. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i was glad to read in the paper that marin street may be available for the flower mart that is, i think, a great move given the push back and the explanations that we have heard. i think it will help us much more strongly to really move forward on other matters. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i was in sacramento this week on wednesday -- i forget when they heard sb 827, and i wanted to go see how sausage was made, and boy, did i see how sausage was made. here, we had a bill that would have impacted so many people, so many cities, and we sit here every week over what i would consider much, much less

important issues -- you know, the five-foot set back on a deck. we take three minutes of public comment generally unless there's a march on the commission which we'll take, too. so we have this bill in the transportation and housing committee. there were 13 members, and the room was packed. we were in the largest room available, and only two witnesses were allowed to testify for two minutes each on each side. and the rest of we peons in the city of los angeles and the city of san francisco got five seconds. you could say your name, you could say what organization you were from, and whether you oppose it or you support it. so that was a real eye opener for me, that there's virtually no public input, no public testimony at the state on such big bills.

so i did get a copy of the staff report for the bill. it's a real eye opener. i think everybody should take a look at it. when you look at it in the end, practically every city in the state opposed the bill, and a lot of them were there including san francisco to say so, but it's a real eye opener. which reminded me, all this legislating that's going on, i saw this article and actually held onto it, and it actually helps me understand the kind of meat that goes into the sausage that goes into the sausage mil called the senate. legislature exempts themselves from most laws that applies to ourselves up here. so we have public disclosure laws around our e-mail, our calendar, everything. legislature doesn't. we have meetings, we can't hold a majority here, four commissioners can't talk about an item that's going to be heard because it violates the

brown act. legislature doesn't have that. so i think the legislature should actually start following the rules that they pass to maybe everybody else follow. it was a real eye opener, and i really think senator wiener, who is a good legislator should take some of his -- the legislature's own advice and follow their own rules. san francisco magazine, april 2018, a really good read. it it it's got, be big tech be at the same samed -- tamed? and it's a really good article. it's got what i would say a few little mistakes, but there's a really interesting quote by mr. ken rich. he says, "however, there is another alternative to upzoning, one that would ease pressure on the city to upzone very widely. there are 60,000 units in the city's development pipeline of which only 12,000 are under

construction." and when we have the housing inventory report today, i h'd like to talk about that. can rich, the director of the city's of office and workforce development says expediting the construction of these already approved unit and also available space that doesn't require rezoning would be more efficient than a massive upzoning effort. he says, i quote "i'd rather focus on getting the parking lot on the west side which has a 40 foot height limit up to 40 feet built, rather than fight an extended battle of extending it to 60 feet." big tech is driving the job growth which is creating the inequality that we're seeing, and it also needs to be part of the solution. i also read today that it was in bloomberg, cities that have the most income inequality, san francisco was number two in the nation. and then, some cities that

actually weren't even on the chart, like san jose and some others moved way up the list. san diego went from like number 99 to number six, so a lot of this is happening in the state. a couple of other things. i understand sb 828 is going to be heard at committee. from what i heard, there's some amendments in it that's slipping in some rezoning upzoning. i'd really like staff to take a look at that and let us know what's in the bill so that it might not be a son of 827 in disguise, another trojan horse. another one, in today's chronic will, there's a point-counter point assembly man david chiu versus another person about the establishment of redevelopment. i wasn't on this commission when redevelopment existed. it went away in 2011, and it's

ab 15 -- no, ab 3037. what does that mean for us, redevelopment? does this mean eminent domain, taking people's homes from them to build affordable housing? honestly don't know. and then lastly, this week, we had another article in the bay area section of the chronic will about hunters point. i'm going to be taking a tour there on monday. there's a perception out in the public there that nothing's getting built because of the toxic soil issue. when you look it, there are things getting built in some zones, and there's already 150 homes built. i'd really like to understand when i go out there monday, what the toxicity of the soil's doing in terms of the timelines and the delay of this housing because i know it's a significant number in that 60,000 that ken rich mentioned that i keep mentioning. any ways, a lot going on. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: just a

comment on the shipyard. construction is moving extremely fast. the project looks fantastic, and you'll be very surprised about its fine quality. it is really a fine project. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move onto department matters, item six, director's announcements. >> very quick, commissioners, on the state bills, we're happy to give you an update on the ones that have not been delayed. 828 is coming up soon, as well, so we'll -- staff has been looking at that. on ab 3037, it does create something like redevelopment in its previous form with the idea that you'd build in some of the protections that needed to happen that were part of the reason that redevelopment was eliminated to begin with five years ago or seven years ago now.

but at any rate, we will keep you informed on that. i think it's less details at this point. it's somewhat conceptual, but it's something we will keep monitoring and at the appropriate time have a hearing. and because 827 was not supported by the committee, we've cancelled next week's hearing, as well, so just for the public to know that, sb 827 that was to be heard next week is no longer on the calendar. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: item seven, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commissioners. >> good afternoon, commissioners, aaron star manager of land use affairs. commissioners, you heard this item on march 29, 2018 and voted to recommend approval with modifications. your modifications included

one, replace the one year abandonment period with 18 month abandonment period, and the new exception to abandonment provisions can be used by the hemlock tavern, and three, the footnote for bar uses is identify to the lower polk use tables. supervisor peskin made a motion to amend the ordinance to add recommendations two and three from the commission but did not extend the abandonment period from 18 months from one year. only one person spoke who was in support of the ordinance. after closing public comment, the committee voted to forward the recommendation to the full board with a positive recommendation, at the full board this week, we just had one item of note. it was the peal for 590 leland avenue. this project proposes to demolish an existing church, subdivide the lot into five lots and construct five

single-family homes, one on each lot. commissioners, you heard this item on january 18th of this year at the discretionary review hearing and voted to take d.r. and approve the project. the appellant appealed the categorical peal because it did not identify the sensitive species on the lot. safety issues due to interference with site lines from nearby parks, loss of ada accessible open space, shadows on the adjacent park, and six incomplete analysis of the best use of the site. supervisor cohen had several questions for staff by covered pretty much every item brought up by the appellant. staff jointly answers each reques -- answered each question raised by appellant, and the motion passed unanimously, and that's all i have for you today.

>> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory teague from planning department staff. board of appeals did meet and consider one item of interest to this commission as has been well publicized, there has been much public debate regarding events in charlottesville, virginia. the san francisco arts commission voted unanimously on march 5th of this year to remove the sculpture. on february 21st of this year, the historic preservation commission had a public hearing with full attendance from all commissioners and found that the proposal was appropriate for and consistent with the purpose of article ten and that

it met the standards of both article ten and the secretary of interior's standards for rehabilitation, and so the hpc unanimously approved the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. first, that upon completion of the project, any documentation that is completed as part of the removal and storage of the early days sculpture should be forwarded to the planning department to be added to the administrative record to the place, and second that a plaque should be installed at the site of the early days sculpture to explain its removal. the matter was appealed to the board of appeals, after presentations from all parties, the board of appeals conducted a short deliberation and asked no questions of planning department staff. they then voted unanimously to

grant the appeal on the grounds that the historic preservation commission acted incorrectly because it was inconsistent with their typical review of such cases, and that the project did not satisfy standard number two of the secretary of the interior's standards for rehabilitation. because the arts commission was a party to the appeal, they do have a right to file a rehearing request within ten days. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: the historic -- >> president hillis: we've got one question. commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: i just have procedural questions about the item you last described. can you tell us what happens now and what the role of the planning department would be? >> well, at this point, the historic preservation commission issued the certificate of appropriateness which was required to make this alteration within the landmark district. since the appeal was upheld at this point, that decision is reversed. within ten days of an appeal decision, a party to the appeal

can request -- make a rehearing request for the board of appeals. essentially, they need to make a case that there was some information that was not available provided at that hearing that could have impacted the out come or that there would be manifest injustice if this out come stands. if they request that rehearing, at that time, they will only be determining should there be a new hearing, not determining, you know, the merits of the case itself. so if they are successful in the rehearing request, which is a fairly high bar, then there would be basically a brand-new hearing on the original appeal. our department, we staff the board of appeals for any decision that are made by the department or the planning commission or the hpc, so we would continue in that role. >> vice president melgar: so if there were -- if the -- -- if the rehearing is not granted because it's a pretty high bar,

then what happens? >> well, i think they'd have to assess it from a preservation perspective. if they determine that the certificate of appropriateness was not appropriate as issued then they'll have to explore if there are ways to modify that request in a way that would be appropriate or if there are other options available to them. >> vice president melgar: but the -- the two parties or the two different sides of the parties in the appeal, can they push it further or this is it for that process in terms of the appeals? >> yeah. for this appeal, for this c of a, the arts commission as a party to the abeale, because they were applicant to the c of a, they can request a hearing. if that is denied, the appeal will stand, and the c of a that was granted will basically be nullified. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: in the course of listening to it, i

lost my question, mr. teague. can you just tell me, is this thing going to stay or go? >> i'm sorry. could you repeat the last part. >> commissioner moore: i'm sorry, could you please tell us if the sculpture is going to stay or go? >> the c of a was required to remove it, so without some alternate direction from the historic preservation commission that would allow it to be removed, my thought is it would have to stay. >> commissioner moore: does this ruling hold for all cities in other counties san francisco the country? is this in particular tied to ceqa and the his toric preservation rules for the

state of california? >> i do know for the removal of this sculpture, it did require the arts commission to act. they have charter and historic responsibilities to move that must be followed. they took that step at their hearing in march, and they unanimously voted to remove it. because this statue is part of the pioneer monument which is within the larger civic center landmark district, there is a certain amount of historic preservation review that is required beyond even just ceqa review. it is categorically exempt in terms of ceqa review, but because of the requirements of article ten, it does require the c of a from the historic preservation commission to alter that monument within the last mark district. >> commissioner moore: thank you for explaining that. i think the public who does not understand the subtleties to see it as a moral push back to what's being asked for. however, i other rules come

into play and that becomes a very complicated discussion, and i wish somebody would sometimes given the public input of what it takes to remove it. it's not just saying that we acknowledge that something was wrong in the past, it takes something else to make it happen. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: maybe a question for the city attorney. if an individual had a decision made by the board of appeals, and they didn't agree with it, is there a judicial remedy they could seek beyond the board of appeals, like file a court case? >> no. >> commissioner richards: okay. and can the city sue itself? >> yes. >> commissioner richards: well, can the arts -- is there another avenue besides it stays? >> commission, kate stacey from the city attorney's office. it has been done before. it is very infrequently that one arm of the city sues

another arm of the city. there may be members of the public that may be interested in suing which may take a petition of a writ of mandate which is a pretty typical doing to sue the city. >> commissioner richards: can an individual have standing? somebody really feels strongly about this in the public, could they, because they weren't a party to any of this, actually step in and then do a -- file a court case? >> commissioner, kate stacey in the city attorney's office. typically, there's a requirement to exhaust your administrative remedies, which means the individual who needs to sue needs to have appeared before the governmental body and expressed the argument. there are certainly other legal vehicles where that may not be a requirement. i can't give you an exhaustive answer, but typically, when an individual or organization sues the city through this administrative writ of mandate process, there is a requirement that they have made their argument to the city before

taking the city to court. this is a somewhat unusual situation because it's two different departments with different kinds of authority or three different departments with different kinds of authority over the same permit. >> commissioner richards: thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you very much for explaining the process to us. i've got to say that i feel really strongly about this, and i don't see a subtlety in this in terms of the public. i think it's wrong and i think as a city we should not be second guessing the removal of a work of art that clearly is problematic and racist and depicts a very problematic relationship to our native population. so i do -- i personally plan on contacting my fellow commissioners on appeals, but i do think that this is something that should be explained to the public and our role in planning

should be explained to the public, as well. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: so just prior to the board of appeals action, the historic preservation commission did meet and did act on several other items that may be of interest to the planning commission. they approved a major permit to alter to modify 120 stockton street for the macy's men's store. that will be coming before you next week, you'll see that project, but essentially changing the skin and opening up the building. in addition, they initiated landmark designation for the arthur h. coleman medical center on third street that provided health care to african american citizens and residents of the bayview district. they additionally adopted recommendations for approval for individual landmark designations for the new pullman hotel, the pile

driver's bridge and structural iron workers local 77 union hall as well as hotel utah. finally what may be of interest to the planning commission is they did adopt a recommendation for approval of a landmark district designation for the clyde and crooks warehouse district. if there are no further questions or comments, commissioners, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may odds the commission for up to three minutes. i did have a number of speaker cards. >> president hillis: thank you, jonas. you can lineup on the screen side of the room.

>> hi. good afternoon. also in the chronicle this morning was the article about bold san francisco proposal to curtail warming with trees, and i think i've mentioned this before, but i -- can i have the overhead, please. that was a yard that was no more. that yard was flat lotted, and what i call w. hotelification was done, and the inside was brought to the outside. so when you get to the residential design guidelines, i think this is something you need to look at because this is happening in a lot of projects where they're just taking the yard and getting rid of all the nature and putting in the fake grass, which i guess is good for drought, but this was a really nice yard, and i think that, you know, if you're going to save trees in the city, maybe we need to think about saving trees on private land.

the other thing i want to say is i want to thank you again for last week, the special meeting you had with the b.i.c. i want to thank especially commissioner richards, because he pushed for that, and we had that meeting in december of 2015 where we found that -- we looked at five projects, and we were told by the staff that 40%, 40% should have been tantamount to demolition. not that they were extreme or possibly tantamount to demolition, but they should have been considered tantamount to demolition. and land year, i made a request or a suggestion that perhaps you consider some sort of temporary demolition or -- or stronger controls on tantamount to demolition in the mission 2020. because i'd walked around there, and i'd seen some things that disturbed me. can i have the overhead again, please. i forgot to bring the original house, but that was it. it was basically that white thing, and it was there.

and here it is during the construction or reconstruction, and there it is here. and two weeks ago, it was in the front of the chronicle, and here it is now. it was a single-family home, and they turned into two units. the combined two units, they're asking over 4 million. i don't know how the condo thing got put in, because it was a whole nother thing originally, but i guess my point is sometimes even if you are adding a unit and they're about the same in size, they're very fancy, i went to the open house, the house sold for 1.4 million before all this happened, so it's something to think about as we go ahead and try to deal with densefication under the current zoning.

thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is margaret gun and i'm a bay crest homeowner. we've reviewed the proposed 430 main design tide water planning. our hope was to appear at the may 10th hearing in full support of a design that addresses not only our concerns but fulfills the planning department criteria and the rincon hill plan of maximizing housing including below market rate units while creating a livable neighborhood. tide water has come back with a design that's far from acceptable, with insignificant changes and is still not a neighborly design. they have put some glass enclosed walkways in the center of the building that do not mitigate the air flow issue in the center of the courtyard. it is still a brick filling up

th the entire parcel. residential open space is part of the rincon hill plan, but does that include ruining the already existing space that was a requirement for the bay crest developer when it was proposed in 1988? regardless, other suggestions brought forth by the discussion on march 29th, we support a two tower design. we are not obstructionists, but we believe the planning department criteria and previous recommendations for a two tower design even with the height increase with some consideration from tide water, this can be done, and they will have a profitable project. looking at the taller buildings to the north, there is respect for air flow and light between them. if you stand at the corner of main and bryant, look where a large brick will be built between the bay bridge and bay crest. it is nothing like that. the ten stories or 40 stories, it doesn't matter. it will not be a positive with the neighborhood even with three floors of glass walkways.

the 430 main project requires a creating a singular design for a singular parcel. we have invited all of you commissioners to bay crest, and we've gotten some responses, and we thank you, and we look forward to seeing you. we invite you, director, if you haven't been over since 2009, we'd love to have you. but here are some facts. there will be a 430 main development. it will be built. tide water will make a lot of money. construction workers who appeared on march 29 will have jobs. main street and beale street will be revitalized with a new building but the question remains, what does bay crest gain with this design. we have open space that needs to be considered and preserved, and we have needs that deserve to be met, as well. we are willing to meet tide water in the middle. are they willing to do the

same. we ask for a plan that works for this parcel that works for the entire community, not just tide water. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> first, i would like to thank all of the commissioners. i have not much of an idea but maybe an imagination of what a difficult and important job you do, and i do want to express my sincere thanks for your community service. it's greatly appreciated, and i want to talk a little bit about justice. now i have a peculiar idea about justice. i don't think that justice is the out come. oh, i'd like this decision. that person was a bad guy, and they got sent to jail. that's not justice. justice is the process that we go through where everything is out in the light of day, everybody has a -- a chance to advocate for their positions, and a fair decision is arrived

for both the community and developers. i'd like to read a letter from claudia yang which i think goes in part to the heart of some of our problems with the 430 main project. she says, i would like to let you know that i have two young twin sons, age six. one of my twin boys, max, was born with a rare genetic disorder called jacob son's syndrome. since birth, max has struggled with various health issues. two of these are still currently a struggle. it is his immune deficiency and pulmonary issues. when max was six months old, he had pneumonia which almost took his life. we have been super careful with his surroundings and environment ever since. we avoid going to crowded places, indoor places with bad air circulations regardless of how careful we can be, max still struggles almost every year, and we end up in ucsf

children's hospital for a week for pneumonia. i am super concerned for the building of 430 main street that it will block our courtyard air circulation, which is where our window opens. thus increases the risk of max having more pulmonary issues. if the construction pros, we may be forced to relocate. with the current housing prices in sf, i'm not sure what we can get. i would also like to bring up that my inlaws are also living in the building, separate units, both of them over 70. my father-in-law had a liver transplant a few years ago, and he is not so healthy. i'm also concerned for him that with the change in air quality, it may put him at risk for falling ill. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> clerk: sfgov, can you go to the overhead, please. >> hi. thank you very much for hearing us. my name is cynthia montes. i'm a resident of bay crest, and i wanted to share with you information that bay crest received from trinity consultants dated january 19, 2018 regarding a review of technical report by ramble environment. as displayed in table 13 which is on exhibit of the ramble report, there was an increase in -- [ inaudible ] >> are substantially higher than levels considered

reasonable for residential projects. this is not accurately reported by the planning department jessica range on march 29 hearing. the ramble report did not include a review nor evaluation of construction impacts. given the location of the project, proximity to the other residential units, and an air quality impact analysis without such a review of construction impacts are incomplete. in section 4.1 -- 4.1.1, chemical section selection, the ramble report states that california regulatory guidelines allow diesel particulate matter for exposure of the mixtures of chemicals that makeup diesel exhaust as a whole. it is likely this aproch

estimataproch -- many air toxics and diesel exhaust may have acute impacts upon internal organs. commissioners, please note, the ramble report uses pm 2.5 as a surrogate as well and it suffers from the same fault as the california regulatory guidelines, an incomplete picture of health risk. the bay area quality management district road way screening analysis calculator uses emfac 2011 for estimated he missiemi factors. and the most recent accepted emissions factors would be warranted. in general, guidelines specify that air dispersian models and health risk assessments require sufficient amount of years of

meteor lodgical data to ensure the worst case are represented in the model results. it is unlikely that using only 20 -- >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is adam masry, and i am a member of the committee for healthy housing, and i'm a resident of bay crest since 1995. what i wanted to use my time today for is showing a few pictures of the courtyards in our building, hoping that you'll understand that what we're trying to protect is -- is green space, which is oxygen creators for the entire neighborhood, including us, and

some of these are public open spaces, as well. we have a variety of trees in our space that as i say are creating oxygen for the neighborhood, and what i wanted to show you in this particular shot is the way that our courtyards are constructed, there's all of the units that you see going up, they all have these -- these vents that face the courtyards, and that's how we get air into our units. every one of these going up is a home, and what we're talking about with 430 main is creating a wall. and what we're afraid of is the 300,000 cars going across the bay bridge soon a daily basis, with that wall on 430 main, will fall into our courtyards, and all of that will be going

through those open vents and windows into our homes. this is what we're frightened by. this is our main street courtyard, which our report projects will be a 15% increase in pm 2.5, and that does not even discuss carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, brake dust, everything that's a constituent product of 300,000 cars going across the bay bridge on a daily basis. you can see that we have a variety of trees in these courtyards. this is our main street courtyard. once again, you can see the vents. this is not about views, which is something that we heard at our last meeting here. most of these units are not facing the bay. they don't have a view that's going to be obstructed by 430 main. we're talking about air and light, and that's what they want to cutoff. this is our beale street

courtyard. there's a wide variety of trees in these spaces, and we are extremely concerned that what tide water wants to do is block our access to open air and light, and once again, on our beale street courtyard, you can see all those things coming up. every one of those units have a vent on that corridor that will potentially be blocked. thank you for listening. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gustavo leo, and i'm also with bay crest. first of all, i wanted to thank you for all the work that you do, and i wanted to thank you to some of the commissioners that said they wanted to come

to bayview because they wanted to see fore themselves. to those that haven't responded to our unhave itation, please do so. it's really important that you see this. adam just had a really good recap now about the light and the air and the concern about the pollutants and all of that. i think this project has two things. there is one side, which is the environmental side, which is the health and the quality of the air that that wall will cause. the other side is it's the design side. i'm going to talk a little bit about the design side. we all, and commissioner his said in our meeting on the 29th, that he was looking for a design that is a more neighborhood friendly or neighbor friendly design. after our meeting on the 29th, tide water came back with some changes, and they proposed that to the department. you can see here what they