Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  April 5, 2018 2:00am-3:01am PDT

2:00 am
we have two speakers. if others want to speak line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm john elsy. i want to talk about 135 hyde. back in 2015 i tried to contact the property owner dealing with 101 hyde street project and the impactses on this property of 135 hyde. in december of 2015 a new property owner which has several properties i feel the property owner over extended what he's going to do and the same thing he did at 101 hyde. had they just wanted to go three the entitlements but didn't have the $10 million plus because they spent over $2 million to buy the property to build on the
2:01 am
project before you. next, the project sponsor did limited outreach to the -- in the pact -- packet with limited route reach and there were six stories and eight studio units for a total of 48 units for the property. then they changed the development plan one month later in december 2015 and when the property was bought to eight stories and 69 dwelling units. most the residential buildings do not have garages and many have subbasements under the sidewalk. the one study shows the building would add more wind to the street level and to the most
2:02 am
dense neighborhood in the city. lastly, the site is for an 80-foot tall building and asking for a 96-foot building to the top making it taller than the buildings to the north and south on hyde street. so adding to the planning code. so i ask that 2015-15203dnx for 135 hyde street and 346 lot 2 not be approved by the project in the current form. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please.
2:03 am
>> hi, my name is michael nolte. can i have my time fixed? i'm a 40 year community activist and the property sponsor could have done more and better outreach. they didn't come to community organizations they probably just went to next-door neighbors and the entities which uc hastings and that's not a big deal going across the street and the union next door. there's more to the tenderloin than three entities in our community. we are full of non-profits and full of resident organizations and full of a lot of things that all want to have their stake holders and should be part of what's going on. we had a big deal about 101 hyde which was the san francisco's
2:04 am
main post office box site and we had a lot of problems with trying to figure out where it would be relocate and then project sponsor was not interested in knowing the impacts which is only a couple doors down from the site. and they share the alleyway as part of that project. so anyway, the stakeholders would like to see more than 10 affordable housing unit of units to the 69 proposed units. this is the north market area. we want to have -- there could be more affordable housing put on the site and one bedroom is 505 square feet and the units are smaller than that and that's very cramped.
2:05 am
my place is 500 and it's a one bedroom. they're bigger units. and mine is a 100-year-old building. so i do support the design. this is the first time i've actually come to a meeting and seen a design i really like because most of them i don't feel are the character of the neighborhood. so that's a kudos for the architect to build something that kind of sits into the neighborhood versus doesn't look like -- looks like it was just dropped in and why's it there. thank you for your time. >> commissioner: thank you. any additional public comment? >> i'm mary anne sullivan.
2:06 am
i live at 155 hyde street. i'm in full support of the project because they did extensive outreach to try to inform everybody in my building at least. and they offered a meeting at the site and i was not many people came. i'm sure they did as much outreach as they could. i've been shown the details of the layout and thinking it's a good project and i hope you'll support it. >> commissioner: thank you very much. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none we'll close public comment. commissioner koppel. >> >> commissioner: i think the design fits well in the concept
2:07 am
of the neighborhood. i'm pleased to see the two options for the rear yards were presented to us. i do like -- on first glance, the proposed rear yard but i have a simple question nor arc -- for the architect. i have two but first thing's first. i do like in general the concept of almost matching the light wells with the proposed arrangement but i do see there's a couple units on that very ground floor units 110 and 210 that butt up adjacent to the property. how did those two properties inact? >> i'm looking at the drawing. this building say two-story
2:08 am
building so the roof of that building ajace in the building is the same as the roof of our building. when you go over to the front of of 433, actually this page would be better. the front of the building is 36 stories. >> commissioner: are there windows being covered up? >> no, i blank brick wall. >> commissioner: is there a reason we went with the nested bedroom configuration instead of a windowed bedroom? >> it's an interesting geometry problem. the perimeter area is very valuable for windows but it's a long narrow lot. the best we could do is get four
2:09 am
units across the front and five units across the back but there are about 14 feet or so wide. that makes a bedroom and living room too darn tight. >> commissioner: understood. thanks. >> commissioner: commissioner richards? >> commissioner: so we have this nested bedroom question on 88 arkansas and we went back and forth on the viability of it and the liveability of it and there was a building code requirement on the amount of light a room needed. and maybe you mr. teague or the architect can recall what that is i want to remind you they're livable units. >> i don't have the exact number of percentages in my head but --
2:10 am
>> commissioner: is it measured from a clear glass. >> you have to have a certain number of square feet of glass in that bedroom. >> commissioner: whether do you have? >> actually more because we're including the clear story. >> commissioner: could review the material pallet pal ate again police. >> our goal is to use modular but we intend to do this over the windows to get more texture and a sense of detailing at the closer scale. the lower level would be a
2:11 am
plaster but a smooth finish on the columns and painted dark and the window frames are aluminum. maybe aluminum clad and probably dark. >> commissioner: one thing that excites me of the building is the sensitivity, the palate and the context. i like it and i think the buildi building sensitive and hand some which is what we need for apartments that are more affordable. a couple things though. i prove to approve the build the stipulation of the palate you outline is the one you use so we don't turn around and walk down the street and see something completely different because something else happened. and for a number of units i hope
2:12 am
we can have two car share spaces versus one. we're in a transit rich area but -- >> we are using the vertical stacking equipment to do i think it's 18 spaces, six across and three, one up and one down and one at level. in order to use the system you have to have one less opening. lick -- like the chicklet example. and you have to have one van accessible. >> commissioner: that's for? >> handicap coming and going. we'll work our magic. >> commissioner: i think for the number of units and location i think that would be a valuable asset. i'll make that part of my
2:13 am
motion. i move to approve the project with the materials in the record and adding additional car space. >> i second that. can i ask you a question. on the upper floors to the smaller building adjacent -- so on the upper three floors, sorry, one back -- on the upper three floors the units -- you've got nested bedrooms in the floors. >> commissioner: yes. could you put a fire window. i know if that building gets built you'd have to cover those but i think it would mitigate
2:14 am
the number of nested bedrooms if you can put [indiscernible]. >> commissioner: so an amendment to the motion. accepted. >> that could be done. >> commissioner: i think that's it. >> if there's nothing further, commissioners, there say variance for exposure that is like two items further on our list on your docket. we have submitted material to the zoning administrator. that item is being considered now. >> commissioner: okay. >> if there's nothing further there's a motion second to approve the matter with conditions as have been amended to include the material palate present the architect to be implemented and the two total
2:15 am
car share spaces be provided as well as the number of nested bedrooms be mitigated on that motion, commissioner fong. >> yay. >> the clerk: the motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> commissioner: i'm close the public hearing on the variances and standard ground adherence. >> the clerk: item 13 for case -- >> commissioner: we'll quickly take the item -- >> the clerk: 14 is the next
2:16 am
item. >> commissioner: it's out of order. >> the clerk: through the chair then we'll be taking 14 out of order for case 2017-0059cua and a conditional use authorization. excuse me, if the members of the public come in and out quietly we'd appreciate. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. a condition use authorization at 48 saturn street. the item is a request for
2:17 am
conditional use authorization for the purpose of the core owe na heights special use district on a vacant property that results in an area exceeding 3,000 square feet and the residential development that results in less than 45% of a year yard. on december 21, 2017 the commission heard the project as a four-story single-family home. the commission moved an intend to disapprove the project on the basis it did not maximize the density allowed by the residential housing to family zoning district. after closing public comment the commission indicated the intent to disapprove and continue the items from march 8, 2018 to allow staff an opportunity to prepare a draft motion of disapproval. the commission also provided a directive to the sponsor as that the product could return to the commission as a two-unit proposal. the sponsor repaired and
2:18 am
renoticed a five-story building strongly opposed by the neighborhood. the project was subsequently continued to allow the project sponsor additional time to work on design concerns. the project before you in the plan was e-mail to the commission. the proposal is to construct a new four-story, two-family dwelling on a vacant lot. the project provides 2,467 square feet of living space on three levels and a basement garage with two-vehicle parking shots and two bicycle parking spots. it includes a 740-square foot two-bedroom unit on the second floor and 1,120 unit on the
2:19 am
second floor and direct access to the street. the partners received opposition to the previous iterations of the project including from the neighbors association. all letters shared a concern of the project not maximizing density by the allowed zoning or subsequently or the five-story tall building. as of yesterday they association has schmidt a letter in support of the product. the planning commission have two options to adopt, to deny the conditional use of the authorization or it make a motion on the revised design for the attach plans dated march 28, 2018. i'm submitting to the record a motion of approval for the current proposal and staff recommends approval of the count project. with that staff recommends approval of the project because it maximizing the underlying
2:20 am
density of the zoning district and the project is in similar height of the dwelling units and not obstructing the neighboring projects. that concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for any questions. >> commissioner: thank you, project sponsor. >> i'm on behalf of the project sponsor. we're happy that after hearing very strong input from the neighborhood we were able to work with them and achieve a number of different goals on this very small site, maximizing the density with little impact on the neighbors and i'll leave it to you if have you questions and thank you for your consideration. >> commissioner: thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none we'll close public comment. commissioners? we're able to approve the motion to approve with the revised
2:21 am
plans which i'd be in supportive of. >> commissioner richards, you're recused? >> no, i sold the property february 22. commissioners you adopted a motion of intent to disapprove from december 21. >> commissioner: the approval motion on the revised plans before us. >> but you should take a vote to limit the intent to disapprove. you have to because you committed to the motion to disapproval. you have to have -- intent to
2:22 am
rescind the motion of innocent in order to act on a motion to approve today. i did not actually ask commissioner johnson to acknowledge that she reviewed the previous hearing and materials for this matter. >> i have. >> thank you. >> commissioner: commissioner koppel. >> a motion to rescind the intent to deny. >> second. >> do you want to make the subsequent motion? >> we should take it separately? >> we're getting very bureaucratic today. >> the clerk: it's important in case it goes further. on the motion to rescind commissioner fong. >> aye. >> the clerk: commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> the clerk: commissioner richards. >> aye. >> the clerk: it passes 5-0. now we can consider an alternate proposal. >> motion to approve.
2:23 am
>> the clerk: on the motion to approval the alternative project. commissioners? so moved. the motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> commissioner: we'll go back to item 13 for the downtown project authorization. >> good afternoon. the proposed project before you is a request for a downtown
2:24 am
project authorization for the demolition of two existing commercial structures with a combined area of 35,625 square feet. the merger of two parcels and the krufconstruction of a new n and 10-story residential building. with up to 144 dwelling units and 840,000 square feet of common space at a rooftop deck and sole -- solarium and a parking space accessed through the mezzanine level. the residential lobby would be on main street and the development would include streetscape including fruit trees and landscaping. authorization the proposed
2:25 am
project is seeking an exception from the planning code requirement for exposure. it's located in the downtown residential zoning district which has experienced significant redevelopment over the past 25 years. 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
2:26 am
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
2:27 am
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 finally the project complies with the first source hiring program. the project will fully utilize the rincon area controls and based on the findings and those described in the draft motion, the department staff recommends approval and the project sponsor has prepared a presentation but this concludes staff presentation and i'm available for questions. >> commissioner: thank you. project sponsor, welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to
2:28 am
present today. i'm craig young. on behalf of tied water capital i'll spend the next six minutes describing how we spent the last four years working to transform a low-density industrial property into mixed income housing. >> we've always found most compelling with the location is it is an opportunity to create a smaller more affordable rental building marketed towards young professionals and families. the cite's location is within the financial district and sen tral -- central soma. the immediate area is made of
2:29 am
new residential tours and development should taper down in height the top of the hill to the embarcadero. the project of 84 feet fits within the intent of the plan and allows for a new runner to the -- renter to the neighborhood. we -- our team set out to learn the neighbors and the neighborhood history. that's how we first developed the concept we're here to present. a rental apartment building with on site affordable housing and mixed housing to address the
2:30 am
city's shortage while removing an eyesore is something neighbors agreed would be a welcome aaddition to the block and 19 on-site b.m.r.s. and the ground floor features a minimal single-lane garage entrance and entrances facing the streets. and we had a focus on non vehicular trans passion provide transportation providing bike cal spaces. it's taken four years from the first application to get to today's hearing. we spent over two and a half years working with cal trans to develop the adjacent cal trans mapt -- maintenance and while this path was ultimately unsuccessful and added to our
2:31 am
project time line, we took it upon ourselves to treat the time to engage in a community effort to develop a community-driven engagement effort. it including monthly meetings and presenting to neighbors h.o.a.s, engaging with neighborhood businesses and holding over 110 meetings with stakeholders. this say -- is a visual of the property. we posted over 20 in-person meetings and over 50 correspondence to the condo owners and had over 200 meetings with community stakeholders regarding the project. the outreach has informed the project today. in addition to receiving feedback from planning and the committee to study the environmental and impact on the neighborhood, planning and some
2:32 am
neighbors asked us to study alternative massings and the north courtyard layout and it caused privacy issues given unit overlook dynamics. the planning department and neighbors agreed this was not a desirable massing for the project and studied a split the we would retire addition height. furthermore, given the plates of the towers they created more compromised living conditions. the planning department was not supportive of the increased
2:33 am
height for the site. we believe it could cause other neighbors currently in support, to oppose the project. after studying the considerations and we came to the conclusion our proposed plan is the only feasible phage path forward for affordable housing and we've resourced over 40 letters of source with neighborhood leaders, local businesses and art organizations. i'm very proud of this diverse group of supporteders and i'd like supporters and like to thank each of those here to speak in favor of the project. i'd like to speak of the 140 jobs and the below market rate rental units and with that all turn it over to our architect.
2:34 am
>> when approaching the architectural design we study the context of rincon hill to understand the neighboring businesses in terms of their proportion and rhythm. the context gave us include to materiality and color. in line with the rincon hill plan it aims to add density to an under developed site in a livable way. we worked with staff to design the facade treatment and incorporate feedback from the commissioners. 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
2:35 am
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
2:36 am
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 courtyard scheme would require the covering of many of the neighbors lot line windows and create significant privacy issues for the remaining windows to the residential units and courtyard. in contrast the proposed design maintains privacy and allows the neighbors to collaborate on the design facing their courtyard. lastly, we submitted to the planning department many different studies for the potential treatment of that north facade. including different amounts of
2:37 am
the potentially fitted glass or art or vegetation on the facade. and we seriously hope to work with the neighbors collaboratively on the design element going forward. the duration of the process and the extensive community outreach has provided us with good feedback with which to refine the proposed project. this project will add a significant amount of housing in line with the growing city's need. the 250 new residents will surround the businesses. we look forward to your mints and questions. -- we look forward to your comments and questions. >> commissioner: thank you. we will open this up to public comment. i'll call some names and you can line up on the screen side and approach in any order. says celia lim and norm fong,
2:38 am
marlene smith, joe majur and margaret gund. when you're ready. >> good afternoon. i moved 25 years ago. after looking at the presentation on paper it looks interesting but you need to be on site to see what the design really is. first of all, i just wanted to say there's a lot of us here. we are not against building something on the loss. we welcome something new in the neighborhood. we want housing. we know that we are in a part of the city that is dense. that's why i moved there. i knew that would be the little
2:39 am
manhattan of san francisco. we all want that. i saw the whole neighborhood grow around us and there are beautiful places, beautiful towers with spaces in between. i mean, it just sounds astonishing to me that a block -- because that building is a block that goes from beale to main from side to side, 10,000 square feet of open space, no, mostly private decks. it's not a building that's friendly to anybody. if you walk to the south and look north, what do you see today? you see three beautiful courtyards, mature trees that exchange carbon dioxide into oxygen it's one of the few spaces in the city. who today has three large courtyards and it's not good for us only but for the neighbors, for everyone.
2:40 am
it's pleasant to walk from bryant to beale and to the east. that's what you see. now pulling a building that's a block, and i emphasize i want to see something built there this is not the design. i'm asking for to you send it back to planning and build something that has synergies that allows this neighborhood to enjoy the courtyards and two buildings that compliment each other. i know they're asking fire variance and you can grant the variances because we're asking 43% variance which is large. i understand you guys do give those variances when the project is of extraordinary design. that is not the case.
2:41 am
the trees will die and no one will be able to use that anymore. plus, all 80% of the units face the courtyard. it's not about views. we face the courtyards. the court yard, we don't have central air. the only air we got is from the courtyards. the pollution as others will talk about is going to increase. there is a 15% increase on one of our courtyards. >> commissioner: your time is up. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm cecelia lim and the hoa president. i'm speaking on behalf of our owners and residents to oppose the proposed project as currently designed. the project a reg -- rectangular
2:42 am
block will form a barrier and block sunlight and air flow causing harmful solutions to collect there and build up. the project would increase [indiscernible] concentrations in our courtyard in an air pollution exposure zone we're already exposed to air that poses a health risk and this will no doubt have further adverse consequences for our health. of particular concern are the units facing the center courtyard which will be boxed in by the project. these units get the fresh air from the courtyard. we do not have forced ventilation. with the project blocking out the wind, the units will have stale air further degraded by
2:43 am
the addition of harmful p.m. 2.5. the only source of sunlight for the units is the courtyard. so these residents will also suffer loss of light. it is possible to build the project without walling off our open space. we asked for a two-tower design which the developer said there were problems with but there are other ways to modify the building so that our center courtyard is not completely blocked off. the environment shapes our well being and health. in dense urban settings like ours, new developments must be sensitive to and respond to existing properties adjacent to them and this project fails to do this.
2:44 am
so we respectfully request that you send this project back for modification. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm cynthia montez. 430 main is the same design structure that was rejected in 2009. as you're aware a two-tower design was suggested then. i hope the planning department will again discourage a two-tower design. as a resident an owner of bay crest since 1993, 24 years with the unit that faces the courtyard, i am extremely concerned about the current design architecture of this project. an 84 story building blocks sun
2:45 am
thor the plants and trees in the open space courtyards home to birds, insects, bugs and probably other animals. and sunlight to these individual units. a block building would block air flow of dangerous p.m.2.5 and carbon monoxide exhaust and other toxic air contaminants allowing them to enter living spaces entering fresh air intake vents. the only fresh air i get is from the units and vents casing the courtyard which can become contaminates. i have a history of pulmonary embolism that required me to be on oxygen several times over recent years.
2:46 am
with consideration to the latest environmental impact report it concluded particulate matter will adversely affect my health. this was concluded in 2009 causing that project to not be approved by the planning department and supervisors. nothing has changed since 2009 with concerns to the level of toxins or design to make this a more viable project and should be rejected as it was in 2009. your consideration is greatly appreciated. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you, ms. montez. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, members of the planning commission and public. i'm reed colna and grateful for the opportunity to speak about my personal and professional interpretation of the design.
2:47 am
to begin, i have a doctor in pharmacology and epidemiology and advanced practice pharmacist and certified specialty pharmacist and assistant clinical professor at ucsf and five-year resident and owner at bay crest. air pollution say serious health concern. one manner toxicologist and ep deem -- epidemiologists did studies on the mortality rate even adjusted for other health risk factors was associated with the level of air pollution. this study and many others clearly demonstrates statistically significant unfavorable health affects correlated with the particulate matter 2.5.
2:48 am
the affects include lung cancer, infant mortality, asthma and other respiratory system diseases and has been shown to decrease your life span. this is death by air pollution. is they have presented the environmental findings and have concerns on the research and the bias in the presentation both of which have been unaddressed and after having no previous respiratory conditions in my life i'm concerned for myself and others vulnerable. we have young and elderly here. for the disease exacerbation and the implementation of the proposed design in its current form. this say public health
2:49 am
environmental concern. to end, i encourage the planning commission to not only take our testimony to heart and understand we support the principles and public safety obligations and feel we still both want the same thing. we want responsible planning that results in an improved san francisco that doesn't jeopardize the health of the count community. thank you for your consideration. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm a resident at bay crest. been there about 18 years. i'm very concerned about building being proposed. i'm not against the building. i think something should be there. it's good for the neighborhood but what is being proposed doesn't make sense.
2:50 am
it will impact the health of many people that live there. just come and be in our streets from say 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. you see what a traffic mess is the and with all the wind blowing all the exhaust will go into the bay and it's gone. with the brick in front of us it has nowhere to go other than me sitting in my room breathing it in. so i know there's been a lot of talk about outreach but the outreach after nine years of outreach they come with the same design. none of the proposals we have made and we asked to do it differently and none of that has been incorporate. the design seems to be in my opinion, a solution to the
2:51 am
problem. yes, it may impact the profit margin of the developer but i think it will overall improve the whole neighborhood if they do it in a different design. i'm against the current proposal not against having a building there in the future. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commission. i'm debbie gould. i'm a home owner at bay crest. to show you how important this is to all of us, my friends and residents were kind enough to let me go in front of them because i have to get to holy thursday service. at any rate, i'm in agreement with everybody else. we're not opposed to the building going up at 430 main. we especially encourage low-income housing, however, the air quality is extremely important to us.
2:52 am
we live at the base of the bay bridge. we're already experiencing a lot of heavy congestion with idling cars during rush hour at any time of the day. sometimes into the evening. we're also dealing with toxins that are coming in off the bridge. and i don't think anybody's taken into consideration the fact that in addition to all the buildings that are surrounding 430 main, we're not even thinking about the people who are going to potentially be living at 4030 -- 430 main so they'll be inhaling the toxins. i'm a 65-year-old woman who is healthy. i'd like to remain healthy. everybody here wants to remain healthy or as healthy as possible. we're asking the design and plans be just altered so that we can all live in healthy
2:53 am
environments. thank you so much for your time. [stand by for captioner switch] .
2:54 am
. >> i want to have decent housing in my neighborhood. i'm proud of the housing that we have approved of and i'm seeing going up around me. it has really brought great things to my neighborhood, but i don't want it to come at the risk of myself, my neighbors, the people i care about, and also those future residents that debbie gould just mentioned. and as things are now, i haven't seen those types of impacts really studied. this is the second time i've
2:55 am
made this statement. we deserve better than a wall. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is norm fung. i'm a property owner, and i want to echo everyone's sentiments. i totally agree with that, and i have concerns about the project from tidewater. i actually own one of the lower four units, they inherently have less light, so any light that does come into the unit will be blocked by that 84-foot building right in the middle of the courtyard, and basically render one of the features of my property useless, which is a patio, essentially. but talking about health effects, also being a ground floor unit, i think all the toxins will wash down and eventually settle into the lower areas at a higher concentration. and on top of that, i have patio doors which gives
2:56 am
increased exposure to that potentially dirtier air, as well. so i want to urge the commission to send this back for additional consideration. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. fung. next speaker, please. >> commissioners. thank you. my name is connolly reed. 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.
2:57 am
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, so there's an undue financial burden if because of the effect
2:58 am
of this building, we were required to install it. in closing, i'd just hope that you all will help to ensure the health and safety of our building and its residents, and the residents of the buildings in the community, and i can only hope that the developers will be encouraged to follow the planning department's requirements and request -- deny the variance that is requested, core conditions for our future neighbors, since they're not here to defend themselves. and finally, in closing, the developers should work with their neighbors on a healthy compromise. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is evan horrigan. i'm a member and resident of the community at 403 main street. i have several objections to the proposed project. my first is a significant
2:59 am
adverse affect to the air quality, for which there's been no study to this project. this project will cause significant undue financial burden in order to reform our current system. furthermore, this project is not respecting the planning process or community, they ignored the recommendation of the planning department for a two tower concept. next, for a proposal that includes a relatively considerable percentage of entry level and below market rate apartments. why are they being placed in the most polluted space in the city? and finally, this building site is inadequate. instead, the site could be combined with a cal transsite to build a transit site. as a member of the port side, we want responsible planning. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is dane entz.
3:00 am
i'm a member of bay crest, and i'm also a member of the committee for healthy housing. at one time, it was thought the highest and best use of the land was to build a canal for shipping, and they did that. and it was a profitable canal until there was a recession, and then, when there was a recession, they couldn't get shipping on the canal anymore, so they decided that the highest and best use for the lapd at th land at that point was to fill it in and use it as a land dump. then at some other time in history it was decided that the best use for that land was residential use, so they built houses. then the people that lived there got sick, got -- died. i hope that we're not going to allow our planning process to create our very own love canal right in our neighborhood. so there's a couple of things i want to turn to. we had a study