>> san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, may 10, 2018. i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate outbursts of any kind and to please silence your mobile devices. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, state your name for the record. we will not take up the central soma plan matter before 2:00 p.m., so you have a good hour and a half. there may be persons who would like to be in the chambers for other items before central soma. unfortunately, commissioners, i tried to arrange for an overflow room, but they're occupied.

we can arrange for the cafeteria in an emergency situation, but only as needed basis. so again, if the members of the public who are standing, could you please find a seat? the sheriffs will get upset at me for causing a fire hazard. you cannot block the doorway and you need to find a seat. commission, roll? hillis here, melgar here, fong here. johnson, here. koppel here. moore here. and richards is expected shortly. item 1, case number 2009-1011 drp. 1863 mission treat, discretionary review, and both are continuance to may 17, 2018.

2014-0014, 275019th street, continuance to june 7, 2018. item 3, the mint-mission conservation district for review and comment is continued to june 7, 2018. item 4, case number 2017 lane 003, 1782 quesada avenue, continued to june 14, 2018. and 160 caselli avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to june 21, 2018. i have no other items for continuance and no speaker cards. >> president hillis: any public comments on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none, we close public comments. >> commissioner fong: items 1 through 5.

commission fong aye, melgar >> alyssa . that motion passes. >> there is item one, 1863 mission street i'll continue that to the state date specified. >> this will place this on the consent calendar and the matter constitutes a consent calendar, considered with be routine by the planning commission and may be acted on in a separate roll call votement . the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 6, 378 arguello boulevard,

i have no speaker cards. >> would anybody like to pull arguello off consent? seeing none, we can take up the item. >> commissioner moore: move to oppose. >> second. >> thank you, on that motion to approve item 6 under consent, fong aye, johnson aye, koppel aye, melgar aye. president aye. that motion passes unanimously. and places under commission matters, item 7, consideration of draft minutes for april 26, 2018. >> president hillis: any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, close public comment. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, on that motion to adopt the minutes for april 26, 2018, fong aye, johnson aye, koppel aye, moore aye, richards

aye, melgar aye, president aye. that motion passes 7-0 unanimously. item 8, commission comments and questions. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> i was on vacation last week, and it's going to be a couple of minutes. kathleen pender did an article on the indian migration of the bay area. interesting article, international migration was 58,000, so we had net increase in population. the survey said that the concentration of people leaving were people that mainly worked in retail transportation and food prep, so lower wage workers. the inflow on the survey, they had advanced degrees and highly skilled and high earners.

so we have this turn going on where the lower wage folks are leaving and the higher wage folks coming in. that's why we have real estate going the way it is in terms of the increase. interestingly enough, it mentions in the article, federal tax law and what it might do to help migration from this state and other states. i actually, when they passed the tax law, i cut this out of the "new york times" and it talks about how we're going to turn texas blue. how am i going to mention that in commission comments? here it is. they're talking about out migration and inmigration, they talked about how states like california, new york and illinois are actually turning states like arizona, texas and florida more blue, because more liberal people are leaving to go to conservative areas. from california, we had 91,000 residents move to arizona, their increase in population. so most people moved from

california to arizona and the population increased. texas, we were 130,000. if i can string it together, new york and north carolina made up the majority. i was reading about displacement and duerrham, north carolina was mentioned because african-americans don't feel at home, they're being displaced. it's not just san francisco and new york, it's north carolina as well. and a couple of -- the last one, really surprised me. first term congressman conna, from silicon valley, he went to west virginia on vacation. it's not a place i really want

to live. he said that in his visit to west virginia, he visited west virginia tech and he's going there because he said a wide swath of the u.s. has left out of the innovation economy and growing resentful of it. we're growing like crazy and place are a stagnating. he says we need to give opportunities to these other areas. by not giving these folks workable solution and have them find a place in the u.s., in the economy, it's creating social political issues, we know what that is, 1600 pennsylvania avenue. so it's causing problems nationally. we may feel like winners, but in the overall game of life, we're probably ending up losers because you can see what we're dealing with in washington. case in point, when we came out of the 1990 recession, half the

new business startups were concentrated in 125 counties in the u.s. coming out of 2008, that went down to 20 counties. there are 3,0007 counties in the u.s. let's talk about the bubble. that's the point of the article. the arrogance that people have in blue areas such as us is causing a backlash. this is coming from his trip. there is a cost of growth, the biggest one is political. he's noting the editorial to sermon about the industries concentrating so many jobs that can be done anywhere by anyone with any kind of training in expensive and congested places like silicon valley and san francisco and the district he represents. it's an interesting point from a congressman who represents a rich district, saying this is

not sustainable, not just we can't keep workers here in the district that i represent, but for the u.s., probably not sustainable because of the resentment. tying articles together, that's the good, the bad and the ugly. >> president hillis: thank you. >> seeing nothing further, we can move onto director's announcements. >> thank you, no new announcements. >> item 10, review of the past events at the board of supervisors and there is no board of appeals report reerth. >> but there was a board of supervisors hearing. good afternoon, manager of legislative affairs. land use, heard ordinance by supervisor peskin. commissioners, you have not had the opportunity to hear this item. originally scheduled for april 12, it was moved to april 19

because of central soma, however when that happened, the noticing was not moved to the 19th. it was not properly noticed and could not be heard. they notified the office on learning this and requested additional time, however that request was denied. staff has significant concerns about how the fee increase impacts projects, particularly central soma. they requested that the community continue the item to allow the planning commission to hear it at may 17 hearing. members had questions about the analysis, in the end were concerned that they did not move the item forward. the committee continued the item to may 21 and that allows this commission the opportunity to review it next week, may 17. at the full board this week, the legitimateization and

reestablishment of storage units, passed its first read. and supervisors tang and safai introduced ordinance that would exempt certain uses in their districts from 312 notification. that's all i have for you today. >> all right, thank you. we can move to general public comment. >> clerk: this places us under general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on terms of interest to the public, that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to the agenda items, your opportunity to address the item will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i did have several speaker cards. >> president hillis: if others want to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon. i've shown you this before, but

given what commissioner richards just read, i'll show it again. this is a chart, a nationwide thing. it shows the growth and the very affluent people. we certainly are ground zero for that. last week, i mentioned a project that was under way on upper 24th street. and this is the building as it was. and you had a d.r. on that last year and you took d.r. and reduced the roof deck, the area off the upper floor, the 4th level. and then it went to the board of appeals and nothing happened. said the house as it was single-family home, really nice, if you want to take the initiative and look on the internet, you can see it was a fine home inside. someone told me about it, so i took picture of it.

i took that on sunday the 28th of april. and then i went this morning and i took that. so you can see that wall there, that's gone. i guess the question i have -- oh, and it sold after they got to the board of appeals and everything and they started the work. so it sold, the entitlement was sold. here's the yard of it as it was. very nice. and here's today. it's all messed up. and there are several complaints outstanding with the building department. i guess what is my point? i don't understand why are they doing such painstaking to build this thing? what is the point of this sort of pretend demolition? what advantage are they getting by doing this? it's painstaking to take this apart. here's another building that was a straight-up demolition, you

talk the cu on it, two units, that's the first one, the next one under way now. why are they doing that? and that's my question. why are they being so painstaking to build two units when they could just come here and get a cu from you? i don't understand. that's it. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i've spoken to you before regarding the market. pier 19 and so forth. i wanted to say thank you very much for all of your support for hearing us out. thank you to the supervisors as well for their time and effort and energy. it was a real key part as this moves forward. also, wanted to mention that we have deadlines coming up. and some of those things will

require your support again. specifically regarding the building at 639 bryant to receive their allocations when it comes time for that, as well as brannen site to be for flower market use. 639 currently, i wanted to let you know that the developer uncharacteristic to people and their belief of developers, they have been absolutely wonderful, forth coming and working with us on different things. they've also been working with the city and i wanted to let you know that. they said they will continue to work with us regarding the tri-party agreement. and that's basically it. thank you so much for your support. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. ms. clark? hi, i wanted to bring to your

attention the growing body of precedent around the housing accountability act. there are going to be more and more projects coming before you that are going to be invoking the housing accountability act. and there is a growing body of case law and strengthening of that law that means we're going to be asking bodies to be making more and more objective findings. and that no longer is it going to be the ability of various bodies to make some of the more subjective findings we've all grown accustomed to. but that the law really strengthened and forced people to find objective reasons to delay and reject projects. we're getting a lot more, especially small project developers, who are very early on looking at their housing accountability act options. especially the 2-5 unit projects that have a lot of the neighborhood excitement around them, shall we say, and input.

that a lot of those smaller projects, where i think a lot of neighbors are used to nipping and tucking and having a lot of opinions, that they're not necessarily valid under the housing accountability act and a lot of the small project developers are looking at the cost options and saying that actually in many cases it makes more sense to go to court under the hha, rather than make a lot of concessions that make the projects much more expensive. that in fact, which is kind of a ridiculous statement to say, that rather than pushing forward through the existing system, they're increasingly much more trigger-happy about saying let's just go to court and have a finding there, because the hha is strengthening gives them the ability to do that. so i would encourage this body to think through what that means. maybe pass additional regulations around -- there is an unofficial policy growing about the two sizes in the

duplex being of equal size. that seems to be a direction that this body is starting to make decisions in, but it's not an official policy and that is the kind of thing that while i understand people might have a preference in two-unit buildings wanting there to be equity of size in those two units, because it's not an objective standard and not established in the code, gives a project sponsor a stronger ability to say this is not objective and i'd rather go to court. so i would encourage you guys to firm that stuff up. >> president hillis: thank you. we'll move to the regular calendar. >> item 11, case number 2014, 429 beale street, also known as 430 main street, downtown project authorization. please note on march 29, 2018 after hearing and closing public comment, a motion to approve

with conditions failed 3-2, commissioners koppel and richards voting against, with melgar and moore being absent. the matter was continued to may 10, 2018 by vote of 5-0. commissioners melgar and moore need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials and if you would be so kind. >> i did. >> i sure did. >> thank you. >> president hillis: you can leave those right there. we apologize. we're waiting for the staff person to arrive. we'll take a two-minute recess? might as well. or we can sit here and stare awkwardly at each other. [laughter]. let's take a twresident hillis:e for the lack of overflow room,

but there are too many things happening in city hall today. commissioners, we left off on item 11, case number 2014-002033 dnx, 429 beale, known as 430 main street. project authorization. before we had taken a break, both commissioners melgar and moore acknowledged review of the previous hearing and materials. >> good afternoon, president hillis and members of the commission. the project before you is the request for the demolition of two existing commercial buildings and the merger of the two parcels and 84 foot tall, nine story residential building with up to 141 dwelling units, private open space, as well as common open space throughout the building. an additional 17, 720 basement

garage for 72 auto parking spaces. and 111 bicycle parking spaces at the mezzanine level. the residential lobby is located on main street. and it includes street scape improvement. under the provisions for a downtown project authorization, the proposed project is seeking modification to the planning code requirement for exposure. it received testimony that included concerns about the negative impacts relative to air quality and access to light by the massing against the adjacent interior courtyard of the bay crest development at 201 harrison street. upon deliberation, the commission directed the department to investigate that

would address these concerns. the first alternative explored the feasibility of constructing two separate towers at the existing or higher height limit that would yield the necessary number of units while preserving access to light and air circulation. the department requested that the project sponsor consider a double tower design early in the design review process, but was informed it would not be feasible until the towers reached a height of 250 feet. this was rejected by the department because it conflicts with a principle guideline that calls for mid rise podium buildings up to 85 feet and slender residential towers up to 560 feet that are clustered at the crest of rincon hill. it implements this vision through designations through all properties through the plan.

therefore, to increase the parcel height limit, a zoning map amendment would be necessary to reclassify the property from one height district to another and approval by the planning commission and board of supervisors to enact ordinance would be required. the second alternative explored the modification of the previously proposed design that would potentially improve air circulation and access to light into bay crest's courtyard. the project sponsor responded with a design that includes a glazed opening at the center of the 5-7 floor of the building which is in alternative a in your packet. the department reviewed the proposal, met with representativeses and determined it would not reduce the concerned impact. the sponsor proposed a second alternative for a 30-foot wide open notch at the two upper most

floors. in alternative b in your packet. this alternative was also rejected by the department and determined that it would not be sufficient to mitigate the light and air impacts. the department recommended that the modification include a notch that was at least 45 feet wide at the center of the upper three floors that were connected through upper walkways. the sponsor returned with proposal to provide a 30-foot wide opening at the three upper most floors, which is illustrated under alternative c in your packet. although this is preferable to the two previous alternatives, the department is not confident that the 30-foot wide notch will improve air circulation and access to light and air for bay crest. in addition, the department received a memo from project's air quality consultant yesterday which is provided to you today, which stated that none of the proposed alternatives would

substantially review the overall concentration of air pollutants, since the hearing the department has received 15 letters in support and 23 letters in opposition to the project. in conclusion, the department supports the proposed development because the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and the rincon hill area plan. the project is located in the zoning that permits residential use. it will add 141 units to the housing stock, including 19 affordable rental units. it is designed within an appropriate mass and scale for the block. the project will not result in any adverse environmental impacts, including air quality. it includes street scape

improvements. the project will comply with the program and the project will utilize the controls and pay the appropriate development impact fees. in order to proceed, the commission must approve the downtown project authorization with conditions, and adopt an amended motion that includes revised findings and conditions consistent with the current design proposal. this motion would supersede the previous one included in the packet. i am available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsors. you have five minutes. we're going to take public testimony at two minutes today also. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is craig young, i'm here on behalf of project sponsors to present a proposal to replace existing warehouse with 141 units of mixed income housing on rincon

hill. it's south of harrison street between beale street and main street. the site is just a few short blocks from the transbay terminal. represents a fantastic opportunity to increase the housing stock in support of a more balanced mix of jobs and housing. i apologize, this was a 10-minute planned presentation, so i'll try to cut to the important points here. before providing any additional detail on the proposed path forward, we'd like to start by acknowledging we appreciate the concerns of neighbors. we understand this project is a major change for the area and requires great study. we have 20 neighbors to the north, including meetings over the past week and i can say there is a considerable amount of good faith effort on all of our parts and have been committed to the discussions. i would even dare to say we build friendships and mutual respect and understanding of the individual and collective goals

along the way. that said, the challenge has always been to find common ground whereby a housing project could move forward on the site while taking into account the needs, wants of immediate neighbors and other stakeholders throughout the community. to that end, we spent the past four years studying this site and learning about this community. we've invested time, energy and attention orchestrating a robust community effort to generate feedback from neighborhood stakeholders. there is a visual overview, with each dot meaning a phone call or correspondence with stakeholder. we participated in over 200 meetings with stakeholders in the project. this has greatly informed the project presented today. this outreach effort yielded 80 letters of support, almost 30 speakers came in support of the project at the most recent hearing. supporters of the project include neighborhood residents,

community groups, neighborhood leaders, nonprofit agencies, unions, local businesses and arts organizations. i'm very proud of this diverse cross section of the community and would like to thank those supporters who joined us again today to speak in favor of the project. doug just mentioned the evolution of the different designs presented. and the proposed design contemplates an open air notch on the upper three floors of the building. it's created a view corridor in the middle of the building allowing additional light. while we will be able to produce a workable housing project under these conditions, equally important the revised design accomplishes the stated goals of the neighbor. the new notch proposed was designed to enhance the livability of the central courtyard to the north. while this is extremely generous in size and open to its north,

it will provide enhanced sunlight into the courtyard. the resulting changes at unit count of 141 versus 144, we maintain the 40% two-bedroom requirement and we provide 19 units at below rate housing. we appreciate the importance of such a concession in responding wholistically to neighborhood concerns. i would to be clear density would diminish the viability relative to the use on the site and force us to abandon the development plans all together. the current scheme maintains the benefits package. this is a slide by way of reminder, we have included a 5-foot setback to preserve the

at risk windows. the overall concession to the neighbors is 12 fewer units and two fewer below market units. the rincon hill plan dictates that residential development should taper down in height. it is fully compliant with the zoning code. you'll hear comments regarding a concept for the site, while this configuration we've studied since 2014, it is this design renders the project infeasible and this scheme leads to a significant loss in density, as shown here, we lose 28 units. the reality is, we lose 140 units in this case, because the project cannot be built. beyond the density loss, this design necessitates a much less efficient structure. [bell ringing] under the building code and requirement to

build more skin area. these impacts -- >> you have to finish up. >> -- develop housing on this site. one more paragraph. >> president hillis: go ahead. >> tide water is a small company and san francisco is our home. we care about the communities we work and do our best to engage with them. this approach is different from project to project, but always rests on a foundation of active listening and compromise. we know development can be controversial and that we can't always make everyone happy, but we always put forth our best effort. we try with every project to help san francisco become a more equitable, more prosperous and accommodating of the people that want to be here. you're asked week in and week out to make judgment calls. this body shepherds san francisco into the future: constraints include the need to

spur housing development without displacement. the desire for positive quality of life for all of our members of our community, the desire to create economic opportunities, union jobs, and desire for neighbors to maintain their property values and need for housing. thank you very much. >> president hillis: so we're going to open this up to public comment. again, it's the second time we've heard it, so we're limiting public comment to two minutes. it would great if you addressed some of the changes and continuing concerns or support. so i'll call names. we have a bunch of cards. line up on the screen side of the room. you can approach in any order. victoria westbrook, joseph kennen, del seymour, dave, mary and tina. welcome.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. actually, at several events this afternoon to do all the same time, this is one i enjoy. it was an easy pick. these two organizations, tidewater and war horse cities, i want to talk about what they do. the first organization war horse cities has been sponsoring tenderloin, they've been the biggest sponsor for the last year and a half, two years. there are probably 15 people in this room today whose lives have been changed as far as economic and workforce development because of the contributions from war horse cities. they are based in baltimore and i think i told you part of the story last time. my daughter is in baltimore, to i'm there a lot. there is neighborhood called gilmour homes. i'm from south side of chicago,

englewood, well placed, can't touch baltimore. baltimore is no joke. war horse went into that neighborhood and almost completely turned that neighborhood around, the investments, the out of pocket investments in that neighborhood has changed those peoples' lives dramatically. i've never seen an area like gilmour homes. you got to look it up. they've done really a great job there. when i first met tidewater they ran a place called the hall on market street and we were trying to -- [bell ringing] -- workforce development, they took every one of our clients, put them to work. these guys, on one day were selling dope, the next day they were behind the stove cooking in their place. they stood right behind them. they turned out to be great employees. i want to let you know what kind of people they are that are investing in the neighborhood. we need housing. and even if we only get one

below market and we are getting more, we need housing. [bell ringing] -- that when the people move up into that place in the open spots -- >> president hillis: thank you, sir, your time is up. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is victoria and i'm the director of operations for code tenderloin. i've seen firsthand the commitment that tidewater capital and war horse cities have made to the community, through contributions to our nonprofit as well as others. they understand that workforce development changes lives. it helps increase economic equity. we see a lot of people in our program that face many challenges. one of the largest challenges they face is housing.

it's an extreme barrier. we need more housing in our city. we need more below-market rate value housing in our city. or more and more people will continue to move out of the city. we deucing -- reducing the texture and culture of our city. please support this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, neighbors. my name is joseph keenan. i'm homeless currently living in the shelter called -- >> you need to speak into the microphone. >> -- called the sanctuaries on 8th. i was homeless up until a few months ago on the streets homeless until code tenderloin saved my life. so i want to thank them and thank tidewater. you know, this project has been going -- has been open for eight

years and delayed for eight years. there is 250 people that could be housed during this eight years. that's 1600 person years. i understand not in my backyard. i understand the rate of growth of your properties may not be the rate that you want, but i mean, this is a time, guys, that you all can step up and pay it forward. i look forward to getting back on my feet, helping paying it forward. and i thank you all for what you've done for me. please stand by. flush sfwlush

. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. it'll come up. sfgov, go to the overhead, please. you can start speaking, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tina king, and impart of the biggest house. i support the living units in the city. i totally support all of the workers working -- >> president hillis: folks, it's helpful if you speak into the mic. sfgov will put you on the screen. people will see you on the screen. >> so here's the fact. >> president hillis: just pull the mic toward you.

>> here are the courtyards, one, two, three, and here's the proposed project. it's two large lots to connect together. so any way, just imagine our life is going to -- it's going to change, because the proposed project back of the building is solid all across, 84 feet high. so just imagine what effect for our living situation in terms of the pollution, the light, even just mental health issue. and on top, the bay bridge right here, the traffic on top. so just imagine the situation we are going to be spacing, and it's going to be totally reduced, the quality of our life, plus our investments, you

know, as well. our investment, we have paid or property tax last april. that is going to be my largest expense for the year, so we cannot just watch everything go down the drain. >> president hillis: thank you, miss king. >> thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dee berman. i'm a resident of -- >> clerk: miss berman, if you could speak into the microphone. >> so the unit that i have looks right into the central courtyard and would not be affected even by this change. all the windows would be facing into a very dark space, and i also echo the concerns of the

previous speaker, the light and the fumes and the dark. i'm personally a really big supporter of more housing. i think that some of these arguments are -- you know, resonate with me. it shouldn't be done at the expense of housing that's already there, and i think that kinds of accommodations that have been made so far have been quite minimal. i think a little bit more working with the residents of our community could be able to come up with a better solution that fits everybody's needs. i don't think we're in it to be sitting on the patio -- i don't have a patio, for one thing. i just am very saddened that the builders and the developers keep coming back with the most minimal changes that do not address the needs and the

welfare of the female in our building. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss berman. next speaker, please. >> my name is mary melgor. i also oppose the project. first, i'd like to point out that the planning department recommended a 45-foot notch, but is negotiating down to a 30-foot notch. i think that the larger the notch, the better. in, i believe, the early 2000 thousands, the planning commission rejected a proposed building very similar because of the air pollution that comes off of the bridge, and in a sun light and plants, which are likely to dibecause of the lack of sun light into that area do clean the air. and so i'm concerned that, you

know, we do have a health hazard that's being perpetuated if not made worse. and i also support low-income housing. i don't know that the rental units will be selling for anything anybody can afford in this city, but i do not support -- i do not believe that the amendments to the proposed building have been significant enough to really preserve and even improve the air quality and air pollution that exists now from the bridge. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please, and i'll call some more names. >> dear commissioners, thank you so much. i'm here in support of the 430 main trestreet project.

i don't need to be a rocket scientist to tell y-- stand hee and tell you that we need more housing in this city. i've been greatly affected by tidewater's contribution to cotenderloin, and sos my family, and i hope that we continue to pick these right developers to build these projects. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm cecelia lynn. i live at 206 harrison street, and i am the h.o.a. president -- >> clerk: speak into the microphone. [inaudible] >> since the last time we appeared before you on march 29, the developer has revised

his plan to include a small notch, while we appreciate that, it will not lessen the negative impacts on the air and light, and it leaves almost all of the south side of our courtyard up. commissioners, we are not obstructionists or people who are greedy or asking for what's not reasonable. we are asking just to keep one of them. we treasure our courtyard, an open oasis lush with mature plants and large trees. it's where everyone goes to spend time outside of their tiny units, many of which are no longer than 430 square feet. we would really hate to see this open space boxed in and turned into a semi dark atrium.

this project is clearly out of sync with our property. the planning department has a design by david winslow that would allow 144 units to be built on the lot without exceeding the height limit and without closing off our courtyard. we hope you will give this plan your fullest consideration. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss lynn. next speaker, please. >> i also live at bay crest. i want to echo what cecelia was saying. i strongly support development in san francisco, and specifically in this neighborhood. and i put some photos of some recent development in the 25 years here, some of the developments that have sprung up in bay crest, adding thousands and thousands of units. i am not opposed to any of these developments and i am not

aware of any neighbors that are. the concern is protection from the pollution and air. here's some photos that i took the other day. [inaudible] >> -- bay bridge. this is a big issue for bay crest because we're effectively an on ramp for the bay bridge. and finally, here is a picture of our courtyard, which is very important as our common space and our green space, and you can see the trees. >> clerk: can you move up, please. >> sorry. >> other way. >> there we go. >> any way, that's a picture of our courtyard, and you can see the trees in the courtyard which act as a buffer between us and the pollution. numerous studies have been done to show the importance of trees in protecting and absorbing the pollution. we're very concerned about the vegetation, particularly the ground vegetation struggles as

it is, and i think a lot of us are concerned about the effect of those trees and the effect of the pollution. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. you have 30 more seconds if you need them. that first beep just tells you you have 30 more seconds if you weren't finished. >> okay. but again, bay crest is -- i don't think any of us -- if we're obstructionists, we're the worst obstructists known to mankind because at the 25 years i've seen at bay crest, we've seen thousands and thousands and thousands of units. we're not objecting the units per se. it's just the blocking of our sun. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is brian beale. i have lived in san francisco and lived within blocks of this development almost five years. i had the opportunity to attend the previous commission meeting, hearing the public comment, and see theitierition

as of design, and here the comments. through this process, i've been blown away by tidewater's willingness and commitment to the community, willingness to constantly shift design, having over 200 meetings with the local community, and shifting the design the best they can with constraints in order to make this project workable and fit into the neighborhood. i think it's obvious that everyone here knows san francisco needs more housing, and i'll go a step further. i think that everyone in this room believes that particular lot should have more housing. but as everyone on the commission knows, ground up development is a very complicated thing. you can rare rhea chief everybody's ideal situation for the design. i think the notched design is a very fair, very good compromise as an olive branch to the neighbors. it is obviously impossible to meet all -- everybody's

absolute desires, but given the intense need for housing in san francisco and the bay area as a whole, i think this is a really good design and a really good potential project. keep in mind how desperately we need housing, and this particular project does not displace a single resident. it's a really efficient use of land in an area that is really a beautiful area and could use more people living in it to support the retail and bars and restaurants in the area. thank you and i ask you to support the project. >> president hillis: thank you. i'll call some more speakers. [names read ] >> president hillis: well come. >> how's it going, commissioners. my name is dale hernandez and i'm a member of local 261. it's a building trades union here in san francisco. we're in support of the project. it's going to provide jobs to community folks that live in

the city, perhaps a career pathway to somebody that didn't know that the trades existed. tidewater is a great partner that provides those type of projects, and which is shall -- we'd like to continue that partnership with them, and we'd urge you to support the project. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is marlene. i am an owner and rest dent of bay crest, and i can't express to you how much i currently oppose tidewater's design for the current 429 beale street project. as was previously communicated due to the proximity of our building, this design will only increase the toxins from the bay bridge and cause health issues. not only will it do that, but it would also block the sun light, but i so very much appreciate in my unit as well as the courtyards. i actually face the south side,

which this building will completely go up in front of my unit. this design and profitability -- i just -- the design and profitability that tidewater wants for these two parcels that they acquired at bay crest, why do we have to sacrifice our health and our quality of life simply because tidewater wants to place an elephant in a key hole? so i strongly beg you please oppose this current design of 429. please require them to build that two-tower design that we would love, possibly mirror bay crest, a smaller version of bay crest. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is david hatfield. i am representing an arts nonprofit in san francisco called illuminate. we created the bay lights project, and most recently are

working another project on market street, and that is how we came into contact with craig young and his team at tidewater and war horse. i came out at the last meeting to speak in support of this project and i'm really happy to come back and do so again. at the time i shared our experience. you've heard a little bit today from speakers and last time about their fabulous outlet on the first floor of their market street project called the hall, and that was a great community outlet. we benefited on the second floor, and it's really remarkable to me that without any requirement for our participation other than a desire to do good in the community, that war horse donated their space to us for two years. that's tens of thousands of dollars of in kind value to an arts organization that's trying to do good in san francisco. and if you look at the terms that tidewater puts out, if you look at their website, you

won't see that story told. and i think that's important to share with you. they are not doing this because they want to be able to tell a good story. i feel like they've done this because they care about the community. and so often, we hear about companies that, either are doing nothing good in the community or are doing good in the community so they can share a great story. i want to share that they're doing this because they care about it, and it's those organizations that when you look underneath the hood and you see that they're actually doing good, those are the organizations, those are the companies that i think we should be partners in san francisco with. so i would urge you to support this organization, tidewater war horse with your support of their project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. i'll call some additional names. [names read ]

>> president hillis: go ahead. welcome. >> thank you, commissioners. pleased to be here. thanks for hearing us. i'm a little bit out of breath. logistics of it all. i think what we really need to redefine and go back to is what does neighbor mean? it's, again, no contesting that they're doing great things in san francisco, but while they've brought out a lot of people here today to talk about what they've done in the city, they really haven't reached out to the people that are right next door, and they haven't heard, really, i think what we have to say that could ultimately resolve the whole issue. so i just want to point out, i was present at the last hearing where new recommendations were made, and i recently saw the new renderings as well as here today, and just a little bit of push back on why things can't be done. i trust that they're capable of

doing better than this. ultimately they don't respect the letter or the spirit of the recommendations that were made last time, and i think they're continuing to show a lack of regard in the process and the recommendations not just here at the commission but the planning department. so i'd like to reitierate as a resident of 201 harrison, i hope that each of you will continue to work on our behalf to prevent any design that doesn't allow air flow between the bay crest towers, and any design maintains the health and safety of the current and future residents. not just us, but 430 main, and deny any variance of poor compromises within their own building that reduces the amount of light and air there, and make sure that it respects the purpose of the open spaces at bay crest and ideally complements the rincon area. so i urge you to require that the sponsors pursue a true

two-tower design and support item increases if necessary. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. stephen buss with mission yimby. i'm here to speak in support again of this project. it's an excellent project, and to reiterate what i said in my comments from the last hearing on this project, we are in a housing crisis. we desperately need to approve more housing, especially with central soma that is slighted for approval later today, we must mitigate the drastic increase and imbalance of office space over housing. and by -- one of the proposed designs takes away 12 market rate units and b.m.r. units.