so please know that baycrest is looking for a win-win situation. we believe a two-tower design will allow lite and air flow to our current courtyard, which would solve or environmental issues. we vehemently oppose the current design because it will create unhealthy air quality for residents, and that it's already challenged because of its location very close to the bay bridge. and we're 300,000 cars travel across it daily, so that's a little different than another neighborhood that we even heard about in this hearing today. so my hope is the planning commission will send this design back to the planning department to create a design that mitigates the worst case scenario of creating more and more pollution for baycrest homeowners because very simply, our lives depend on it. we invite the planning commission to come and visit baycrest so you can see the effect the tidewater building will have on your community. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is adam masry. i live at bay crest. i have since 1995. i ha

i'm a resident at baycrest. i'm a supporter of housing in the city, affordable housing, and despite that, i find myself to be surprised at the current plan at 430 main. i find it's a front to the community that's there, simply putting profits over health. the proposal, it's a brick or a wall as some others have mentioned, and it just, i think is intended to initially fill all the air space that it possibly can. if you look at it from the harrison street side, it will simply look like a prison wall. you know, in its history, the project project ignored the department's request for a two story design and has ignored the statements that you've heard here today. there are many other two tower concepts that pay respect to the community as they've developed. but most concerningly, i read the development report and saw that 430 main has been required to install merv-13 level filtration. interestingly, our home at bayview is 13 years old and home to many elderly and families, and it doesn't have merv level 13 filtration

if we look at conditions today baycrest when exposed to sun and if the project were to be built according to our measurements and bay crest can confirm whether i'm grossly wrong or not. the dimensions of their interior courtyard measure about 70 fex 0 and given the size of the project, that project, bay crest, would meet today's planning code requirements for open space. i think it's important to consider that and obviously the department has been in constant contact with the bay crest community since the project began and we're obviously very sympathetic to their concerns but wa we have to do was look at look at the benefits of the project relative to the impact and with regard to the urban design guideline. technically the project isn't subject because the guidelines don't go into effect until april but it's a relative issue and looking at it the urban design guidelines adopted last week contain 24 specific goals. and it's virtually impossible for every single project to meet every single goal. i think we need to sort of analyze the project based upon the comprehensive goals and policie

the properties include the baycrest development constructed in 1991 to the north and the 11-story, portside development constructed in 1997 to the east and the bridgeview development kruktded constructed in 2002 to the west. south is a cal trans parcel used as a maintenance facility. the vast majority of other parcels are zoned for rincon hill or transbay residential and there are a few parcels zoned high density -- residential, commercial. including the written comments in the published packets the committee receive 73 letters opposing the project site design stating concerns on the potential impact on air quality for the adjacent residents, impact and accumulative traffic congestion. after analyzing all aspects of the project, department staff finds its unbalanced consistent with the policies of the general plan and rincon hill area plan. project is located in a zoning district that permits residential use. the project is an appropriate in-fill development to add 144 new dwelling units to the housing stock including 19 affordable rental units in an area zoned for the construction of high-