can we get that for the next meeting? >> do we normally request that, peg? if not, this would be -- >> i'm not aware that you have, but we have a current report on that all the time. so, yep. we can bring it. >> talking about adding audits and so forth using the goboc. >> that probably is appropriate as we approach the end of our fiscal year as you know, some, an item to say that, to show the data that mr. bush asked for. >> sure, yep. >> thank you. >> so there being no other business, we'll consider the meeting adjourned. >> so moved.

>> 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 proposed.

it's -- i can't even fathom what's in their heads. they open up a hole in the middle with glass. that's their proposal to us after the meeting that we had. it is so ridiculous that it doesn't even -- you know, i can't even think of what's in their minds. this is the same drawing from -- looking from our side, from the bay crest side, and here -- here's a closer picture of that opening. what they fail to show you in this picture is what adam showed, all the trees. these are mature trees. these hare 25-year-old trees. we have a whole eco environment going there. that wall, as you can see, it's going to kill everything in there. i mean, from an urban design guidelines, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. you know, we are all for

housing. we want to have a neighbor next to us. we welcome 429 beale, 430 main. we want a good neighbor there, but we just want something that actually has synergies with bay crest. we have a proposal, a two tower design. it is here. you know, this is the picture of a slicing in the middle. you see bay crest there. our courtyard open. the air will flow from side to side. commissioners, we have three courtyards here. we're struggling to have them. give us an inch in one of them. we're still not having anything in the others, but thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bruce bowen.

i'm from the delores heights improvement club. i'd like to bring an issue to your attention, something that's come up a number of times before. this -- this is 3790 21st street. it's the corner of 21st and noe. it was approved -- there was a d.r. on this a couple of years ago. it was approved in 2016. it's being remodelled. i'm not here to talk about the remodel, but the excavation. excavations are problematic because they're increasingly common, especially in our neighborhood and many others. as i understand it, the excavation is covered by the categorical exemption under ceqa, so it's approved by the commission, but jurisdiction of the excavation, review of the excavation and also monitoring of the excavation by contractors who are maybe not

qualified to actually do the work for significant excavations is problematic. this picture was sent to me yesterday, taken by the neighbor downhill on noe street. there's rebar coming up through his basement about five or 6 feet over the property line. he contacted the dbi and was told by the dbi inspector, this is an insurance problem. call your insurance. i don't know, but this is something i wanted to bring to your attention. excavations are problematic. smaller ones and even larger ones create problems that are severe for homeowners more than other kinds of remodel activities. i'd like to thank commissioner richards for bringing up sb 828. the april 9th amendments have

in them what i believe is a stealth up zoning provision and also a transit oriented provision. a couple of amendments slipped in right before the demise of 827, so the comments are coming back from 827 into 828. the upzoning is a little complicated, so we'd like some help in understanding what the language is to make sure we understand that that's what's going on, but i believe it is. and also, also to thank you, the commission for having the hearing -- the joint hearing last week. as was already mentioned, it was extremely educational and appreciated. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i just wanted to speak real quickly about the conditional use authorization for 214 states. this was on your calendar on

the march 12th, and at that time, we had lots of people from the community and from our side ready to testify. if you'll recall, the project sponsors asked for a continuation because of the b.i.c. joint hearing, and you'll remember it was continued to may 3rd. so the -- the joint meeting could occur. unfortunately, after the continuation part closed, we realized from our end, nobody could really show up on may 3rd. so we came up at the public comment such as now and let you guys know that, and you mentioned to work with staff to make a change. so now that the joint meeting has happened, and we've been working with staff, but nothing's really happened yet, i'm just here proactively for

the community saying that we're trying to work for a continuance, and as it's slipping away, coming close to may 3rd, we just hope that if it turns up at may 3rd, that we're asking for a continuance then in essence agreed upon before, that you'll afford the same sort of deference to the community that you did for these project sponsors. so that's all. just wanted to let you know we're trying to be proactive. >> president hillis: thank you. mr. cohen? >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter cohen with the council of community housing organizations. i hate for us to come here and sound kind of whiney, 'cause that's about what we do, but i'll whine today that this is about the third time we've mentioned this. your pipeline dashboard, we had a really interesting set of hearings here a couple of

months ago because there were some complaints that the data wasn't quite organized properly. we spent a lot of time with your staff, you've done a new format. it's all fine. it's still buried. nobody knows it's out there, and so our suggestion was to put it as a live link on your weekly agenda. here's april 12th. it's not on the agenda. here's april 19th, today. it's not on the agenda. it hasn't been on the agenda for a month and a half, and i do recall quite clearly on the record that the planning director assured the commission that it could be added to the agenda as a live link. now, it may seem again nitpicky and whiney, but you do a lot of data analysis, and it comes out every quarter. it's frankly the best real-time snapshot that you and all the political leaders at city hall has about what's going on in our housing production and our housing entitlements, and having it buried three clicks

deep on a website that nobody knows exists doesn't make it helpful. we just came out of a very good hearing in sacramento around sb 827, and one of the things i get is how people understand how things work. most people don't have any idea what they're talking about. so think of your dashboard as an educational tool, not just a pile of data, and not something that's hiding something threatening and you know e folks will spin the data however they want. that's fine. that's what folks do, but think of it as a way to actually educate the general public about how things actually work, to have more intelligent conversations, more intelligent policy. so i really implore you all to get that live link on there and start being proud of the fact that the planning department produces something that is unique in california. believe me, there's no other

jurisdiction that has better tracking and reporting and intelligence about its housing policy and production. get it out there for everyone to use. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll close general public comment. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i just want to thank mr. cohen for sharing his comments. i think that one of the things that i love and have really enjoyed about being on the planning commission is just how engaged the public is in wanting to know and understand the mechanics of what's happening and wanting the data to really understand and be part of informed conversations about the present and future of our housing stock. and so i'm just -- i would love to hear from the department if anyone wants to share or just to see some action taken to make that data accessible as quickly as possible. thanks. >> president hillis: commissioner richards?

>> commissioner richards: i think instead of hiding the data, i think we need to recognize miss rogers for analysis on 827. i think it's just an oversight that the link's not live. i think it's probably an easy thing to do, so i support commissioner john's statement, as well. on 14 states, i believe that's agendaized on the b.i.c. meeting in may, so having it scheduled for the 3rd may not be a good idea. maybe we should schedule the 19th like we did the other item, so you might want to check with president -- >> president hillis: so we've got it on the 18th. we would have to ask staff to move it to that date and that would be helpful. director, did you want to comment on the live link? >> i think it is an over sight, and perhaps miss ojeda can

comment on it on the housing inventory today, unless you want to comment on it now. [ inaudible ] >> okay. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: if there's nothing further commissioners, we can move onto your regular calendar. item 8. [agenda item read]. [please stand by for captioner switch]

. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve, commissioner fong -- excuse me -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved,

commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, item nine. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: this is also a planning code amendment. >> president hillis: you want to take item ten, jonas? sorry. >> sorry about that, commissioners. audrey backas, planning department staff, but before i make my comments, john updike is here to present on this item. >> president hillis: no problem. welcome, mr. updike. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john updike, director of real estate. thank you for hearing this item today, and giving me a moment to