an important active was consistent with the rincon hill plan. by using the walk-up residential units and lobby and minimizing the service elements such as the garage access and mechanical spaces. despite that we're able to harness the pedestrian experience. in addition we're looking for opportunities to add vegetation and bicycle parking where possible. the site limited our ability and we found the u-shaped proposed to be the only viable option for the site. it's held back five feet from the property line so the neighbors space can be maintained. the neighboring courtyard is open to the street on the injury side. the north courtyard scheme does not impact the space in a meaningful way and in addition requires the closure of the at-risk lot-line windows. though this configuration seems plausible and planned, when you consider the section of the project you can see the existing courtyard it becomes apparent the height of the neighboring parking podium would compromise the project and would no longer be viable. 27 units would be lost. the north cou

they're allowed to do off-site improvements and streetscape requirements, and in rincon hill, we're in satisfaction of the open space irpt kwoos. >> commissioner richards: we also heard some some of the we are soma community around some additional things. i don't know if they'd go through the city attorney because they sounded like they might not actually be legal. we sat here last time and said hey, go engage the community one last time, so can you tell me what the results were there, what happened that one last time around the track was? >> i reached out to the community after putting the packet together because that's where my mind was the last couple weeks after the hearing, the person that directed the hearing, and she directed me to annette gomez from local 2 who you heard the request specifically from labor there. i have not heard another request how the dollars would be apportioned. sounds like we have a couple more weeks. >> commissioner richards: like with the jobs. >> yeah, you have a jobs piece and we put a policy in the plan specifically to supporting good jobs at your req

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-density residential development. the project is compatible with the existing neighborhood character of rincon hill and designed with an appropriate massing and scale nor subject lot. the project will include streetscape improvements consistent with the neighborhood plan and fin

potentially with filling in where you come off main and beale, which i think is a product of the rincon hill design and you have the setback 10 feet which is meant for a tower and i think your design on main and beale is better if that building were entirely on the street front all the way up. you're kind of -- the design on the lower floor. i know you can't do it it's against code but your design and the facade of those units and it turned into a black -- blank wall. i get that's the point but taking out two of the three-bedroom units. could have an open corridor where that is? as long as you made the connection it wouldn't retire -- require it but you'd lose units in that case. case. it's similar to the scheme which was studied trying to keep the openness but not have the added staircases. you end up with the amount of enclosure for the space you have becomes relatively expensive. >> commissioner: on this scenario. >> it would be a hybrid. and the upper floor would have the impact of the scheme. >> commissioner: i'm saying on the top three floors lose three units and have an open -- and ag

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 som

the last resort and it take it out of the plan the project is designed to be consistent with the rincon hill plan and when you start rezoning in an area to taper down a height -- >> commissioner: i sat in yesterday and he said they're going to taper down and a looked at said it does taper down but look at this. it tapers down even with an increase in height. >> we went through the scenario and the planning department said no. they don't want to process it. that's why we're here. we could have started a much more robust process for a very big effort but we're designing to the zoning. >> commissioner: you were saying there's some requirement that things get recorded when there's a pushback and we have a project sponsor saying they wanted to do two towers. that's what i heard the planning department said no, we want you to do -- i'm looking at all the data and they said they wanted you to do two towers. >> they could design it as two towers. that's not a problem. they're saying there's no profitability there and that's not a design consideration but if you look at the code section 309.1, it has

but yes, i voted for the rincon hill plan. for market octavia, for -- we are about to do central soma, albeit i have said i think it needs to have more housing than it currently has. but that is the purview of what we do, what our planning commission does and the planning department does. this is about huge amounts of value and running up the cost of land and housing. when you are talking about a mcdonalds site, i say respectfully to the chair, supervisor breed, that site could have cost a lot more than 15 million bucks if this transit-rich bonus had been given. it is going to run up land costs through the roof. it is going to make stuff less affordable in san francisco. so, as i said before, i think we should send a message to sacramento that this dog does not hunt and let's start over again. and if sacramento wants to be helpful, help us address the ellis act, costa hawkins and send us a bunch of money to build more affordable housing. [applause] >> president breed: thank you. next speaker. supervisor peskin, to be clear, my