Emails

HERE ARE SOME LETTERS FROM SAN FRANCISCO CITIZENS, YOUR CONSTITUENTS, AND BAYCREST OWNERS THAT SEEK YOUR HELP AND UNDERSTANDING:

(Click on name below or scroll down, entries in no particular order:)
Supervisor Mar Listened
1. Natalie Bybee Unit 113
2. Cynthia Montes Unit 227
3. Regina Alvara Unit 503
4. Edin & Margie Goolan Unit 1025
5. Lauchin O'Sullivan Unit 220
6. Amy Lai Unit 827
7. Sheldon Wong Unit 330
8. Iris Hubert Unit 625
9. Alain Billot Unit 328
10. Kathy Turnquist Unit 1119
11. Zarak Kurshid Unit 217
12. Gary Winters Unit 821
13. Marcos Saramago Unit 312
14. Julie Norris Unit 726
15. Nick Tatoya Unit 130
16. Ciaran Mac Gowan Unit 419
17. Melinda Rogers Unit 428
18. Linda & James Assalino Unit 111/500
19. Kathy Mack Unit 627
20. Brenda Holmes Unit 812
21. Alex Rothenberg Unit 325
22. Sebastian Arsequel Unit 913
23. Win & Pat Westfall Unit 910
24. Jack Kleytman Unit 305
25. Ann Bailey & Boren Chertkov Unit 627
26. Charles Johnson Unit 712
27. David Kellis Unit 726
28. Jack & Jean Lai Unit 304
29. Bonnie Liu Unit 425
30. Brian & Judy Hutchinson Unit 109
31. Peter Chang Unit 1023
32. Tina King Unit 604
BACK TO HOME PAGE

SUPERVISOR MAR LISTENED
Letter from Devlin Gardella, Unit 927

Dear Supervisor Mar,

Thank you again for taking the time to listen and comment on the concerns that many BayCrest residents have regarding the proposed development at 430 Main . As I introduced myself to you yesterday, I am the father whose son began kindergarten this school year in the Mandarin Immersion strand at Starr King Elementary. As Starr King was our first choice in the public school lottery assignment (our remaining six choices were also language immersion programs), we were very happy – and relieved – to have been awarded a slot after a couple rounds of assignment. After seven weeks of instruction, my son has remarkably made a smooth transition and looks forward to going to school, interacting with a diverse student body in his class and on the grounds, and receiving his weekly homework assignment and writing Chinese characters. We also have a daughter who is not quite pre-school age; thus, my wife and I have made a long-term commitment to residency in San Francisco , as it will take ten years for both our children to complete the K-5 immersion program. Though I’m a longtime owner at BayCrest (since 1995 – it was built in 1991), starting out with a BMR unit that I purchased with a VA loan (I served in the Marines after graduating high school in 1984), I recently moved my family into the larger two-bedroom floorplan on the 9th floor, well above the proposed 84’ height limit of the 430 Main development. After saving money by squeezing our family of four in a one-bedroom unit for too long, we found ourselves in the financial position to afford the larger unit. Regrettably, we made the move in December 2008, before the 430 Main project was publicly announced and while I remained blissfully ignorant of the local, broader environmental concerns.

Aside from sharing my heartfelt appreciation for our meeting yesterday and a little more personal background, I write to you now for two reasons: the first a follow-up, the second an additional concern. First, I wanted to provide you with a more accurate estimate of our sensitive residents. I reviewed my notes from discussions I had with our HOA last month and spoke with my wife last night, who is a stay-at-home mom and knows many residents personally. The HOA informed me that we have 33 sensitive residents: 22 seniors (8 of whom need assistance), 9 children and infants (1 of whom is disabled), and 2 disabled adults. My wife told me she had recently met new parents in the building with 3 more children total; she also thought that we have closer to 50 senior residents. (The HOA had acknowledged their numbers as estimates.) I believe this reasonably supports what I stated yesterday. Additionally, I know of a couple instances of children who grew up and still reside here, one of whom is a young, fellow Marine who has served in Iraq – though I wouldn’t consider him "sensitive" any longer! The other instance is a quite disabled young adult, whose family occupies two units and shares her care, which includes daily walks through the hallways and courtyards.

Second, I wanted to express another point that I neglected to introduce yesterday, a point that you might also discuss with Dr. Rajiv Bhatia: disclosure to an unsuspecting public. I have first seen disclosure referenced on page 4 of the May 2008 paper by the San Francisco Department of Public Health. This position paper is entitled "Assessment and Mitigation of Air Pollutant Health Effects from Intra-urban Roadways: Guidance for Land Use Planning and Environmental Review," authored by Bhatia & Rivard (please see attached for your convenience). Suggestions to evaluate and prevent roadway related effects at the project-level included this language on disclosure, "For residents purchasing or renting property in proximity to hazardous roadway air pollution sources, provide information on exposure, hazards, and mitigations." Had this public policy of disclosure been implemented by the time I moved my family to a larger unit at BayCrest, I suspect our calculus on where to locate would have been affected. Perhaps we would have found ourselves in Potrero Hill, closer to our son’s school. I’m deeply troubled by the prospect that potential owners and renters continue to be largely unaware of the adverse health effects of locations proximate to roadway "hotspots." This is a citywide concern. It is particularly relevant to much of South Beach and Rincon Hill given the presence of the Bay Bridge and all the traffic that circulates through our neighborhood because of the Bay Bridge . Many of us here are blessed with spectacular views of the Bridge (one of the projects, built ten years ago, is even named "BridgeView"), while unknowingly breathing dangerous levels of particulate matter. From the attached paper, the following quotes I found especially troublesome as a father:
• "Certain land uses such as […] freeways generally emit air pollutants that could be hazardous to human health, particularly that of sensitive receptors such as children, elderly and people with respiratory diseases" (page 13 Doc#25a this site).
• "Health research has consistently demonstrated that children living within 100-200 meters of freeways or busy roadways have poorer lung function and more asthma and respiratory symptoms than those living further away" (page 3 Doc#25a this site).
• "Collectively exposure fine particles are strongly associated with mortality, respiratory diseases and lung development in children, and other endpoints such as hospitalization for cardiopulmonary disease" (page 5 Doc#25a this site).
• "In fact, there is no scientifically known no-effects threshold for PM2.5 suggesting the health benefits from incremental improvements" (page 10 Doc#25a this site).

Frankly, the more I research this issue, the more frightened I become, the more anxiety I feel for my children who sleep a stone’s throw away from the Bay Bridge . Were we in a financial position to relocate to a safer home in the City, we certainly would. I guess the proverbial – perhaps literal metaphorical – nail in the coffin is this quote from the attached FAQ on Article 38, which appears to have sprouted from the gathering science and findings reported by Bhatia & Rivard in their May 2008 paper, "The legislation will prevent avoidable lung disease and premature death in residents living near busy roadways" (page 1 Doc#19 this site).

In summary, my concern is primarily twofold and centered on air quality. Public policy should require that existing and future residents, including those who would occupy 430 Main , be apprised of potential health risks associated with proximity to hazardous roadway air pollution sources. This addresses a macro-level deficiency in our neighborhood and throughout the City. As it relates specifically to the proposed 430 Main project, given its proximity to BayCrest open space and our open ventilation system, it should be incumbent on the developer to study the environmental risk and off-site impacts associated with complex wind patterns and resultant pollution dispersion attributed specifically to the design of 430 Main . Based on my conversations with a number of environmental consultants, this is best achieved by a wind tunnel study, which might cost $40,000 and require 5 to 6 weeks. This seems an insignificant investment of time and money, given that the developer has reported the project would take 18 to 24 months to construct at a cost of $35 to $40 million.

In closing, thank you again for your audience yesterday afternoon. I do hope you will be able to visit our site and better envision the items we’ve discussed. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions.

Sincerely,

Devlin "Dario" Gardella, Unit 927

Back up to top of page.

1. Natalie Bybee, Unit 113

Dear San Francisco Supervisors, Supervisor Daly ,

I am an owner at BayCrest, 201 Harrison Street. I have enjoyed living at BayCrest for several years and particularly enjoy the moments I am able to sit outside in our courtyard after a long day, which is unfortunately the few times I get outside during the week due to long days in the office (I’m not complaining, as I’m very happy to have a job these days!). But I bring this up because there is a recent proposal to build 430 Main Street that will make that wonderful courtyard, not so enjoyable as the current design will close in the courtyard. This will make the passage of fresh air very limited, as well as light and essentially create a hole which will not be conducive to feeling like one is outside at all.

I am writing to ask that you carefully review the position and proposal by visiting the website www.lookcare.com which will help explain our request for a redesign of the building so that it allows construction that is compatible for our community and environment.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Natalie Bybee
Owner at BayCrest Unit #113

Back up to top of page.

2. Cynthia Montes Unit 227

Dear San Francisco Supervisors, Supervisor Daly,

I am the owner of unit 227 at BayCrest, 201 Harrison Street. I have lived here as a single mom for the past 16 years, raising my son who is now in college.

I oppose this project in its current proposed design.

My unit is a corner unit facing the court yard which affects both my bedroom windows facing the bay bridge as well as my windows facing the court yard. I have always been aware the windows facing the bridge could/would be closed as they are on the property line and I am not opposed to that.

My concern with this current design is that it will enclose the court yard and remove virtually all direct sunlight and movement of air which will be a travesty for all residents as well as potentially unhealthy given the amount of pollution we already get from the bridge. Currently we have free airflow through this courtyard. It is not just the residents facing the courtyard but all residents that currently make use of all the amenities the courtyard provides for the Baycrest Community.

Additionally as Baycrest’s architect has stated "The bulk, height and configuration of the proposed project results in a 40’ (approx. 50’ tall relative to the ground level of the courtyard) that is in no way consistent with the architectural language and scale of Baycrest towers and its existing central courtyard. In other words, the propose project makes no attempt at being contextual and/or create any sense of harmony with its surroundings. In fact, relative to the perceived scale and dimension of the courtyard from within courtyard itself this new mass/concrete wall is completely at odds with many of the key objectives of the Rincon Plan: to provide an architecture that is meant to encourage a human scale, ensure light and air to open spaces, minimize shadow on open spaces, respect an existing pattern of open spaces, and address the critical balance between residential density and creating a livable neighborhood."

If this project were to go forward in its current design, Baycrest community would also most assuredly incur a significant financial impact with a reduction in property value. One only has to look at the picture with the Proposed Development to see how significant the impact would be i.e., from the courtyard, the top of 430 Main building blocks the bridge so any direct sunlight to the court yard would no longer exist.

As Regina Alava of unit #503 so appropriately said in his email to you on September 19th 2009 "The proposed building at 430 Main Street will close in our courtyard and create a "hole" that will be neither healthy nor attractive. Changes in the design of this proposed building can allow construction which will not destroy our environment." I concur

I request that you review our position and proposals at http://www.lookcare.com) and I hope you will support our request for a redesign of the building that will be compatible with our community. I request tht you enlist the support of the other Supervisors in this effort.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Cynthia M. Montes

Back up to top of page.

3. Regina Alvara Unit 503

Dear San Francisco Supervisors, Supervisor Daly,

I am the owner of Unit 503 at the BayCrest, 201 Harrison Street . I have owned at BayCrest since 1995. When my son was born, I chose to stay in the city because we had a community at BayCrest and could use the wonderful courtyard and pool area as a safe and enjoyable outdoor space.

Unfortunately, this much-cherished space is at risk. The proposed building at 430 Main Street will close in our courtyard and create a "hole" that will be neither healthy nor attractive. Changes in the design of the proposed building can allow construction which will not destroy our environment.

Please carefully review our position and proposals (we have a website I invite you to visit at http://www.lookcare.com) and support our request for a redesign of the building that will be compatible with our community.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Regina Alava
Owner, Unit 503, BayCrest

Back up to top of page.

4. Edin & Margie Goolan Unit 1025

Dear San Francisco Supervisors, Supervisor Daly,

My husband and I purchased the unit #1025 at Baycrest Towers at 201 Harrison Street in March of 2004. We fell in love with the building and the location, and at that time our daughter and her husband lived in a similar unit a few floors above ours. I'm writing to request that you reject the Portland Pacific's current development proposal at 430 Main and require that they alter the planned development to minimize the visual and environmental impact on its neighbor, Baycrest Towers.

Baycrest Towers is one of the more affordable condominium buildings in the area and we were thrilled to purchase a unit. Our main objective is to live in it when we retire, or sell the unit in the future to help finance college expenses for our two son's. Our careful planning will be shattered if you allow Portland Pacific to build their building behind Baycrest Towers as it is currently planned. This proposed development is poorly designed and negligent, as it's design is done without any consideration to other residences in the area. The current design will destroy any view for many residents (not us, but we're concerned for our neighbors) and permanently ruin the central courtyard and pool area by boxing it in and blocking sunlight, directly affecting the quality of life for all residents at Baycrest Towers. This visual blight for the central courtyard and for many residences will cause all the properties at Baycrest to lose value.

Please reject the Portland Pacific's current proposal and require that they alter the planned development to minimize the visual and environmental impact on its neighbor, Baycrest Towers.

I appreciate your attention to this issue,

Best wishes,
Edin Goolan
Margie Goolan

Back up to top of page.

5. Lauchin O'Sullivan Unit 220

Dear San Francisco Supervisors, Supervisor Daly,

Many of us have met you and voted for you. You stand for the people. As one of 500 residents at 220 Baycrest, I implore you to look at the ramifications of the building they want to erect next door. I am not on the side which windows will be covered and blocked, but, want to make my personal stance known against blocking out our common area pool/garden area. We already deal with black dust and soot from tire wear from the Bay Bridge beside us. And now to inhibit our area even more is to block off our air supply, and beautiful sun. Buildings have gone up in our area, and we understand that is part of the process, but when it gets to be a health danger, that is different. I have lived here for over 18 years, and plan bringing up my children here.

They can build this building in a way that does not harm us!

Thank you for your time,
Lauchlin O'Sullivan
#220

Back up to top of page.

6. Amy Lai Unit 827

Dear SF supervisors,

I am an owner/resident of the BayCrest Towers : 201 Harrison Street , S.F. I am writing to you concerning the development project of the adjacent building located at 430 Main Street , which is owned by Christopher Zupsic.

The residents at Baycrest have gone through several meetings with Mr. Zupsic since the beginning of his development project, to address our concerns and objections to the inconsiderate designs of his building design proposal, which would block a substantial amount of Light & Air to his neighboring building. Although he had indicated that he would look into a more appropriate design to be more accommodating, we have NOT seen any design changes from him up to date. Mr. Zupsic has shown no effort of wanting to work together to address our issues of the light & air quality.

Please take a look at this web site: www.lookcare.com, and you will understand how painful it would be for the Baycrest residents if Mr. Zupsic’s design is allowed to go forward. We must then have to endure the sight of a giant and ugly wall there to block the light and stiffen our air quality. Residents at BayCrest will be losing light and air qualities, that’s two out of three of the living environmental essentials of Air, Water and Light. If allowed to go through with Mr. Zupsic current design, homeowners at BayCreat will also suffer greatly in the decreasing values of our homes due to poor lighting and air quality.

San Francisco South Beach district is known to be a beautiful area with well designed residential and commercial high-rises. Development projects should always follow the goals of being functional, aesthetic, and environmentally sound. A good design should have implemented all elements to create a better environment for all, to prevent losing essential living quality of light, air & water. Unfortunately, Mr. Zupsic’s design does not follow any of the above criteria.

PLEASE HELP US to stop this design. We are not asking Mr. Zupsic to stop his building project. We simply ask for a sensible design to create a better environment for all of us, at Baycrest and the South Beach community.

Sincerely yours,

Amy Lai - #827, 201 Harrison Street , San Francisco , Ca 94105
http://www.lookcare.com

Back up to top of page.

7. Sheldon Wong Unit 330

Dear Board of Supervisors, Chris Daly,

I have owned unit 330 in the BayCrest Towers since 1992. I took a great leap of faith at the time of purchase because the infrastructure to support a residential community in the South Beach area was minimal at best (for example, the nearest supermarket was either the Safeway up Market Street or down the Embarcadero in Fisherman's Wharf). I consider myself and other BayCrest owners pioneers in this respect. It has since become a vibrant area with many condominiums built and more on the drawing board. I have never had an issue with new development until now.

The planned 430 Main Street project would have an extremely detrimental impact to our homes. The proposed wall will eliminate sunlight to our courtyard and create an environment where unhealthy air conditions will prevail. Please visit www.lookcare.com for the detail.

I urge all of you to have the developer re-design his project so we can all live in harmony.

Sincerely,

Sheldon Wong

Back up to top of page.

8. Iris Hubert Unit 625

Dear SF Supervisors, Chris Daly,

Please support us by requiring the developer to come up with a better design solution! I am concerned that the current design of the new building, right next door, will have a negative impact. This new building, if not further modified, will cause our building at 201 Harrison Street (1989) to become a dark, cavernous habitat! Build smarter! I just want a win/win solution, not a win/lose solution.

This is about healthy city living! This is not about a view. And this affects over 500 residents of San Francisco. I personally do not lose any view from my unit, but the building but will lose a vibrant out-door courtyard. If the wall goes up, we lose our healthy, sunny courtyard, to a wall of darkness. We will have nowhere to go that is not dark and lifeless! There will also be significant environmental consequences! Please help.

The current building plans for 430 Main/420 Beale Street, would allow a solid towering wall to exist... at the one area ... where the sun lights up our complex.

Our courtyard is a refuge in the heart of our little complex, in the heart of a mixed use area of the city. Our building has been a lovely and diverse "residential" community in an otherwise mixed industrial area. We were pioneers in South Beach/Rincon Hill living. Many condominiums now dot the area, with 50 floors of glass, but we were one of the first buildings here, just 10 stories high, a relatively small footprint. Once inside the front doors, and up a few steps, sunlight shines on a verdant green plant-filled courtyard and pool area. Our Courtyard is the heart and soul of our complex; the only haven for the residents of BayCrest Towers, some wildlife, and beautiful green plants. It is our only green area, backyard, breath-of -fresh air, haven. Preserve it. Save it.

Our environment and our health is at stake. Our units were not built like many of the newer complexes; it is only a 10 story building. Since 1989, the courtyard has been the heart & soul, and "green" refuge for our residents. Protected from the winds... but sunny and bright, it has been an important outdoor living area for us. There have been few other green areas in the neighborhood for our residents to relax & enjoy the outdoors. The courtyard gives us an area where we can feel safe and enjoy our garden, and some sunshine.

The proposed building will be monolithic from our courtyard, and close the airflow and sunshine from our community. PLEASE require a design revision that saves the sunshine and fresh air circulation, and that would not cast us all into darkness. We are owners. We love our community and our neighborhood. I believe the new developers should be required to find a design solution that would save our hospitable outdoor area. It is about our health. It is about our environment. It is about our community.

We can't afford big lawyers, and have little political clout. Please help us! If you want to encourage community diversity, please, please support us, by demanding a design change, that will protect our unique community, our small, 20 year old, 10- story building. We are a small, boutique community, compared to the huge sparkling high-rises now going up. We are a community of the "little guys" who came first. We are the city-dwellers... who are still here. We are the middle-class who could not afford the new high-rises. Help Us Help San Francisco to do the right thing!

Regards ,
Iris Hurbert
Unit # 625 Baycrest Towers
201 Harrison Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

Back up to top of page.

9. Alain Billot Unit 328

Dear San Francisco Supervisors,

I am the owner of Unit 328 at the BayCrest, 201 Harrison Street, which I purchased in 1992. Back then, the building was the first to start the revitalization of this neighborhood and from then many new developments sprung up around it. These were planned with care and respect for the environment and their surrounding communities.

The planning of the proposed Portland Pacific's building at 430 Main goes against these attributes, is an insult to anyone’s’ intelligence in San Francisco and construction should not be allowed to proceed in its with its current design.

I want to reprint what others have already quoted from the Baycrest architect: "The bulk, height and configuration of the proposed project results in a 40’ (approx. 50’ tall relative to the ground level of the courtyard) that is in no way consistent with the architectural language and scale of Baycrest towers and its existing central courtyard. In other words, the propose project makes no attempt at being contextual and/or create any sense of harmony with its surroundings. In fact, relative to the perceived scale and dimension of the courtyard from within courtyard itself this new mass/concrete wall is completely at odds with many of the key objectives of the Rincon Plan: to provide an architecture that is meant to encourage a human scale, ensure light and air to open spaces, minimize shadow on open spaces, respect an existing pattern of open spaces, and address the critical balance between residential density and creating a livable neighborhood."

I respectfully request that you take the time to review the Baycrest community’s position and proposals on our website at www.lookcare.com and your help to support our request for a redesign of the Portland Pacific's proposed 430 Main Building.

Your consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.
Alain Billot
Owner, Unit 328, Baycrest

Back up to top of page.

10. Kathy & Floyd Turnquist Unit 1119

To the San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Re: 430 Main/429 Beale Development Project

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:

The 430 Main St developer took his own risk when he bought a very tiny narrow lot directly behind BayCrest Towers and assumed he could build on every inch of space without regard to the quality of life of the many "moderate income" BayCrest owners. His current development plan is too big and too bulky for the lot. It creates a dark cave-like atmosphere for most
of the units at BayCrest, the two side gardens and the main pool area. It adds nothing to the new Rincon Hill livability plan. His building will have sun and light, while he takes most of our sun and light away.

We acknowledge his right to build and want a harmonious living plan for all of us. BayCrest has 288 units with approximately 500 occupants including families, handicapped people and elderly people who utilize the outside spaces. If he is granted variances and his building remains an 8-story block, BayCrest residents will be living under a big dark wall (the backside of his bldg). Why can't he downsize to something more suitable for his small narrow lot? So far, he has refused to redesign.

Besides being a BayCrest owner, I am a realtor who has sold condos at 201 Harrison for many years. When I disclose the development plans to prospective buyers, there is immediate fear and negative response which has seriously affected property values, in an already declining market. No one wants to purchase a unit that will be buried in darkness. Everyone wants to
be part of the new Rincon Hill livability plan, which this is NOT.

We know the city is sympathetic to the needs of its citizens, and so many of these owners who purchased at BayCrest are hard working middle income people, whose homes are decreasing in value. There is also concern that, because the developer will be contributing over $2,000,000 to the city, that his plan will be allowed, as the city wants and needs his contribution.

The developer has his team of lawyers and staff, but we, the BayCrest owners are on our own. We believe the Board of Supervisors represents the regular citizens (that would be us, the owners), and we urge you, on our behalf, to carefully review and consider the developer's 430 Main current design very carefully and thoroughly.

We respectfully ask that you reject his poorly designed plan and decline the requested variances that so negatively affect our environment and open space, and ask him to redesign his project, with better livability for all.

Thank you,
Kathy and Floyd Turnquist
Unit 1119, 201 Harrison St

Back up to top of page.

11. Zarak Kurshid Unit 217

Dear San Francisco Supervisors, Supervisor Daly,

I have lived in Baycrest Towers for the last three years and absolutely love the area and the great progress the city has made to increase population density and amenities in the neighborhood.

I love Baycrest’s the sunny, airy outdoor sanctuary including our lovely pool which allows residents fresh air and a sunny place to relax. With the proposed building at 430 Main Street I am worried that our outdoor sanctuary will become a dark and toxic mess, trapping carcinogenic bay bridge exhaust in our backyard, severely impacting our quality of life including health of the surrounding neighborhood.__Please carefully review our position and proposals (we invite you to visit our website at http://www.lookcare.com) and support our request for a redesign of the building that will be compatible with our community.__Thank you for your consideration.

Zarak Khurshid
Owner, Unit 217

Back up to top of page.

12. Gary Winters Unit 821

Dear Supervisor Daly,

I am Gary Winter, a resident and 11-year owner of a housing unit at the BayCrest building at 201 Harrison Street near Main Street in SF. I work at San Francisco General Hospital. I am opposed to the currently-configured proposed plans to build at 430 Main Street.

Won't you please support a redesign effort of 430 Main to make the BayCrest building, abutting 430 Main Street, a healthier place to live?

Current design plans will close off our courtyard to sunlight and circulating air. Given that we are not much more than one football field's distance from the Bay Bridge span, the current plans pose a serious public health issue to our building's 500+ residents. Please feel free to go to www.lookcare.com for a more complete explanation of why I am writing to you today.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to appearing before the Board of Supervisors on October 20th regarding this issue.

Gary Winter
201 Harrison Street #821
SF, CA 94105

Back up to top of page.

13. Marcos Saramago Unit 312

My name is Marcos Saramago, and I’m the owner of the unit 312 at 201 Harrison Street, the BayCrest. This letter concerns the construction of the building at 430 Main Street, our direct neighbors.

As you might know by now, we at the BayCrest are extremely concerned about the way the proposed design will affect our lives. We’ve tried everything we could to reason with Portland Pacific to present a design that would not impact our lives the way the current design will, but to no avail. They couldn’t care less about the consequences of their proposed design on our lives and our neighborhood after they pocket their investment. The value of our property will go down, and the life in our very nice building will be permanently changed for worse.

The current design poses health problems related to car pollution and air quality.

We at the BayCrest, are hard-working folks, and care very much for our neighborhood and for the values that makes San Francisco such a wonderful place. We do not oppose the construction of the new building. We are asking that our health and the future of our neighborhood be taken into consideration when designing the building. We put up a website, http://lookcare.com/, to make our concerns louder. Please do take a look at it.

We need your help, our democratically elected officials, on this struggle. PLEASE, help us. We are really counting on it.

Most sincerely,

Marcos Saramago

Back up to top of page.

14. Julie Norris Unit 726

Dear San Francisco Board Of Supervisors:

We are writing to address our strong concerns with the proposal for 430 Main project and how the airflow, light, and building massing will affect our livable neighborhood issues.

Our concern with this current design is that it will enclose the court yard and remove virtually all direct sunlight and movement of air creating an extremely unhealthy amount of pollution given what we already get from the bridge. This will be a travesty for all residents. Currently we have free airflow through this courtyard. It is not just the residents facing the courtyard but all residents that currently make use of all the amenities the courtyard provides for the BayCrest Community.

We are very worried about the quality of air from the bay bridge and the high traffic in our neighborhood that will trap pollution in the small space left between our building and 430 Main. We respectfully request that an environmental impact study be done by the developer to assess the air pollution issues and that the developer should not have been exempt from conducting an environmental review.

We’re not asking that the 430 building not be built, we’re asking for a reasonable plan that continues our livable neighborhood - we already live here and have certain rights to air and light. We’re asking that the 430 Main project doesn’t build the largest building possible in the smallest space and devastate our quality of living.

We've lived in Rincon Hill for 5 years. Many people have lived here since 1991. The residents of BayCrest have made the Rincon Hill community what it is today.The developer has his team of lawyers and staff, but we, the BayCrest owners are on our own.

We believe the Board of Supervisors represents the regular citizens (that would be us, the owners), and we urge you, on our behalf, to carefully review and consider the developer's 430 Main current design and exemption from environmental review.

Thank you for your time.

Julie Norris #726

Back up to top of page.

15. Nick Tatoya Unit 130

Dear San Francisco Supervisors and Supervisor Daly:

With respect, I am writing to state my concerns over the proposed project at 430 Main Street. While I fully respect the right of land owners to build on their property, I also believe there is a responsibility to consider quality of life issues that result from such a decision.

I have lived at 201 Harrison Street since 1997 and own a condo on the courtyard level on the first floor. If the 430 Main Street project is allowed to proceed as currently designed, I am concerned the air quality for me and all who live here will be seriously impaired. I use my patio frequently and often open my sliding glass door for natural air flow. I am concerned this will change if the project as planned is allowed. Also, as a retired person on a fixed income, I am very concerned that with less natural light to my unit, I will use more artificial lighting at added cost. During these extremely difficult economic times, every cost is a concern.

Once again I respectfully request you consider the decision on the 430 Main project and the impact your decision has on our quality of life. If you have any questions about my concerns, I would be pleased to discuss them with you. Thank you for receiving my concerns through email and for your attention.

Sincerely,

Nick Tafoya
201 Harrison Street
Unit #130
San Francisco, CA

Back up to top of page.

16. Ciaran Mac Gowan Unit 419

10/05/09

Re: proposal to build at 430 Main St. blocking light and air from an existing courtyard garden that serves over 400 people.

Dear Supervisor Daly,

My little boy lives in ‘Baycrest’, a modest condominium twin-tower of 11 stories in ‘SOMA/Rincon Hill’. Between the towers is his garden, a tiny plot of land, surrounded by three walls but still open to the sky and an occasional slanting sun from the remaining open boundary. It is his world outside the condo, a chance to jump in the pool, to squeal and laugh, and to run around chasing ladybugs! But it is truly a tiny plot of land and a tiny little pool, three strokes and you’re at the other end! He needs it. I need it, - I’m his Dad. Down here in ‘South of Market’ we have no gardens, no big public parks, no trees to climb or bushes to hide in; and outside the main door is a world of congestion, traffic and concrete, big rigs, and the singing steel of the bridge. You can’t play ‘tag’ out there. You see, we live bounded by the streets of Harrison, Main, Beale and Bryant, all of them arteries, day and night, to the Bay Bridge. -- So we play in the little garden.

Recently a developer applied for and was granted permission to build a big building right behind our garden; a big eighty-four foot high building; so close that we’ll be able to touch its blank faceless wall; so close that no longer will we enjoy the sun’s brief passage in the mornings; even now for most of the day we just have sky and even that is to be reduced – to a square hole above our heads.

I don’t think this is right. My little boy doesn’t see how anyone could be allowed to do that either. I teach him to share, to think of others and not to be selfish, -- really important values; and yet right here, in our back garden we are soon to be denied the sun and the sky, by a selfish developer and an astonishing planning decision.

This is a travesty of values, and my son, with all the innocence and clarity of a seven year old mind knows it.

Please help us to stop this. We are a community of 200 owners, say 400 residents, faithfully paying our property taxes for years to the City of San Francisco, and deserving of a small garden with light and sun as much as the next. We are Moms and Dads, kids, singles, couples, young and old, rich and poor; like you. The garden is really important to all of us, -- it’s a tiny oasis, and it’s all we’ve got.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Yours Sincerely,
Ciaran Mac Gowan.
Dad, Owner, Occupier of #419 Baycrest,
201 Harrison St., San Francisco CA 94105

NB. This matter comes up at your Board meeting, October 20th. - please review the case at: http://www.lookcare.com.
Thank-you again.

Back up to top of page.

17. Melinda Rogers Unit 428

Dear Supervisor Daly,

I have been an owner and resident at the BayCrest building at 201 Harrison since 2005. I own a small studio apartment that overlooks the inner courtyard. I also suffer from asthma and allergies.

I strongly urge you to become familiar with the situation currently underway between the BayCrest apartment building and the proposed building that is scheduled for construction early next year at 430 Main Street. I am writing to you to let you know that I am extremely concerned about the health and safety of myself and the other residents of BayCrest if the project at 430 Main is allowed to be built in its current design.

The design of the proposed building will, in effect, put a cap on the end of all the open spaces at BayCrest. This will likely have a detrimental affect to the airflow in our main and side courtyards. As you likely know, the Bay Bridge is a very close neighbor to us, along with its almost constant traffic sound and air pollution. The current air quality of the "fresh" air I have access to via the one small window and fresh air vent is tolerable, but please note that it is already very dirty air that enters our building. My blinds and the wall next to my fresh air vent collect a dark particulate buildup very quickly. The current design of our building allows for air to flow over the front of the building (the low "bridge" along Harrison and between the two towers), over the pool and hot tub, and out through the open side of the property towards the bay (keep in mind, I am not an expert, so the air flow may be the other way...the point is that there currently IS airflow in the courtyard). Granted, given our dirty blinds, the effectiveness of this airflow is not sufficient to carry all particulate matter away, but its presence only helps increase the air quality of our open spaces. If the proposed building is allowed to block our open space, the air flow will cease. As a result, the particulate matter and traffic fumes that continuously fall from the bridge will not be swept away and will accumulate at an even greater rate in our courtyards than it already does! This makes me very worried that my asthma will be triggered more often and require more medicine to keep it under control.

I strongly urge you to support the commissioning of a full environmental impact report of the proposed building plans at 430 Main and the current building design at 201 Harrison, including the impact of the noise, fumes, and particulate matter that come from the Bay Bridge. This study NEEDS to be performed by environmental professionals and include a to-scale model air flow (wind-tunnel) study of all three structures to confirm if the air quality of the BayCrest open spaces will indeed suffer a decline in air quality or not. Please insist that Mr. Zupsic and his investment partners be held responsible for the cost of this report, as the owners at BayCrest are not as wealthy as many of our Rincon Hill neighbors and do not have the financial resources that Mr. Zuspic has access to with his investors'/partners' contributions to his project.

Please fight for us, Supervisor Daly, as the Board of Supervisors needs to understand that this is our last recourse of action. Event the President of the Appeals Board Commissioner Fung supported our appeal and he expressed his concern for the lack of airflow/wind tunnel study in the developer's current assessment during our appeal's hearing in August.

If this building is allowed to be built in its current design without further studies, I WILL NOT FEEL SAFE OR HEALTHY in my own building and I will be very upset that our fare (fair?) City would allow a building to be built while ignoring the potential safety risk it could pose to its neighbors. This goes against the spirit of the Rincon Hill development plan, and against the idea that our government can protect the "little guy's" rights to clean and safe air in our own backyards.

Many thanks for your attention and support,

Melinda Rodgers
201 Harrison #428

Back up to top of page.

18. Linda & James Assalino Unit 111/500

Dear San Francisco Supervisors, Supervisor Daly,

I'm writing you in hopes of getting some assistance with our problem. I am an owner at the BayCrest Towers : 201 Harrison Street , S.F. I am writing to you concerning the development project of the adjacent building located at 430 Main Street , which is owned by Christopher Zupsic.

The residents at Baycrest have gone through several meetings with Mr. Zupsic since he presented his development project, to address our concerns and objections to the total self serving designs of his building on a tiny narrow lot wedged between the Baycrest and the Bay Bridge, which would block a substantial amount of Light & Air to our building. Although he had indicated that he would look into a more appropriate design to be more accommodating, we have NOT seen any design changes from him up to date. Mr. Zupsic has shown no effort of wanting to work together to address our issues of the light & air quality.He has now said he will not change his design.

The proposed building will be monolithic from our courtyard, and close the airflow and sunshine from our community. PLEASE require a design revision that saves the sunshine and fresh air circulation, and that would not cast us all into darkness. We are 500 owners / Voters. We love our community and our neighborhood. I believe the new developers should be required to find a design solution that would save our hospitable outdoor area. It is about our light. It is about our environment. It is about our community.

Here are a few of the violations to the Rincon Hill Plan:

OBJECTIVE 2.1
PROVIDE QUALITY HOUSING IN A PLEASANT ENVIRONMENT THAT HAS ADEQUATE ACCESS TO LIGHT, AIR, OPEN SPACE AND NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES, AND THAT IS BUFFERED FROM EXCESSIVE NOISE.

OBJECTIVE 3.1
ACHIEVE AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

OBJECTIVE 3.4
PRESERVE VIEWS OF THE BAY AND THE BAY BRIDGE FROM WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND THROUGH THE DISTRICT FROM DISTANT LOCATIONS, WHICH ARE AMONG THE MOST IMPRESSIVE IN THE REGION.

OBJECTIVE 3.5
MAINTAIN VIEW CORRIDORS THROUGH THE AREA BY MEANS OF HEIGHT AND BULK CONTROLS THAT INSURE CAREFULLY SPACED SLENDER TOWERS RATHER THAN BULKY, MASSIVE BUILDINGS.

OBJECTIVE 3.6
ENSURE ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR TO THE DISTRICT AND MINIMIZE WIND AND SHADOW ON PUBLIC STREETS AND OPEN SPACES.

OBJECTIVE 4.4
ENSURE ADEQUATE SUNLIGHT AND MINIMIZE WIND AND SHADOW ON PUBLIC STREETS AND OPEN SPACES.

OBJECTIVE 4.1
CREATE A VARIETY OF NEW OPEN SPACES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE RECREATION TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A SIGNIFICANT NEW RESIDENTIAL POPULATION.

Policy 3.2:
Vary tower heights to avoid the visual benching created by a number of buildings whose tops are at the same elevation.

Policy 3.4:
Require towers to be spaced no less than 115 feet apart, the maximum plan dimension per Figure 4 for towers over 85 feet in height, to minimize shadowing of streets and open space, and to preserve at least as much sky plane as tower bulk. In recognition of pipeline housing projects at 375 and 399 Fremont Street, tower spacing less than 115 feet to a minimum of 80 feet may be permitted to encourage the provision of housing on these sites in keeping with the overall goals of this plan, provided that the other urban design and planning policies of the plan are met.

Policy 3.9:
Minimize shadows on streets, open spaces and residential units, and the creation of surface winds near the base of buildings.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, I hope it connects with you in some way. These are the times when we find out if our representatives are really representing us.

Again, thanks.

Linda and James Assalino
201 Harrison Street # 111

Back up to top of page.

19. Kathy Mack Unit 627

Board of Supervisors
City & County of San Francisco
1650 Mission Street, Room 304
San Francisco, CA 94103

I am writing to object to proposal 2007.1121XV, to build an eight story, 113 dwelling building at 430 Main/429 Beale. I am a co-owner of an apartment in the BayCrest at 201 Harrison Street.

The development at 430 Main has been approved allowing exemptions for the requirements for dwelling unit exposure and variance for open space. These exceptions should not have been approved. As proposed, the building will be set back only 5 feet from the BayCrest towers and 10 feet from the central courtyard of the BayCrest. This means that there will be an 84 foot wall five feet away from the windows of 36 apartments, effectively depriving them of light and air, and reducing the light and air access for about 80 other apartments. For an image, see www.lookcare.com

If this building goes ahead as proposed, all BayCrest residents and owners will be harmed. Environmental consultants have confirmed the reduction in air movement will increase health risks for users of the Baycrest common areas. It is my opinion that the combination of the orientation of the existing towers and prevailing northwesterly winds in the vicinity provide a very well ventilated environment in the area between the towers. (Exhibit B.) Conversely, it is my opinion that the construction of the proposed building at 430 Main Street will reduce the wind flow and significantly impact the ventilation between the two towers. See the entire Expert Report by Jan Null at http://www.lookcare.com (Doc# 30).

The existing open space at the BayCrest will feel like the bottom of a hole, rather than an attractive area providing light, air and usable open space for residents, guests and staff.

The impact is worst on apartments on the lower floors and those immediately adjacent to the proposed building. Some of them will have virtually no access to light and a significant reduction in air movement. The lack of access to light and air will mean greater use of power for lighting, ventilation, heating and cooling in the affected apartments. This will impose costs on Baycrest owners and residents, as well as increasing the carbon footprint of the building, offsetting the value of the alleged green features of the proposed new building.

It is for these reasons, among others, that another expert consultant concluded that there is a need for a project specific environmental impact report, a requirement waived by the Planning Commission:
My review indicates that the program-level EIR on the Rincon Hill Plan does not include the necessary project-level studies to support this exemption. For the entire report, see the letter by Grassetti Environmental Consulting at: http://www.lookcare.com (Doc#31).

The loss of value for all BayCrest apartments will lead to a reduction of tax revenue for the city, and may lead to more widespread problems, such as foreclosures, damaging the neighborhood even further. While the new building may create some short term employment, and provide some housing, it will do so at the expense of several hundred established owners and residents in an existing, active neighborhood, who are themselves working people and families.

The developer's lack of good faith and lack of concern for neighborhood amenity and values has been demonstrated by the speed with which approval was sought, clearly intended to drastically limit the opportunity for existing residents and owners to express their concerns. By giving only the bare minimum notice required, the developer must have intended to prevent objections from being formulated and sent in time to be incorporated into the planning department staff's consideration.

The developer's continuing bad faith towards the Commission as well as towards the neighbors has been shown by the way he has handled the consultation process requested by the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission on April 9, the developer agreed to participate in a process of consultation and redesign that would address a range of concerns. His conduct since then, as described in several other submissions, does not reflect any genuine concern for the issues raised or for the views expressed by the Planning Commission. His actions raise doubts about the sincerity and reliability of other claims he has made about the proposed project, such as whether it is to be rental or condo, or whether the "green" elements in design and construction will actually be undertaken or the status of the adjacent Caltrans property.

We at Baycrest have provided an alternative plan which ameliorates some, though not all, of the harms which the proposed design creates. This design is demonstrably financially feasible, though somewhat less profitable for the developer. For the entire design, see http://www.lookcare.com, (Doc#36)

Overall, the current proposal and design represents a cynical attempt to comply with some, though not all, of the bare minimum specific planning requirements, while ignoring or undermining the broader goals of the Rincon Hill plan and the planning process itself. The proposed building should not be approved.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission.

Regards

Kathy Mack

Back up to top of page.

20. Brenda Holmes Unit 812

Hello,

My name is Brenda Holmes, owner of 812 Baycrest. I am totally opposed to the Project that will lower the value of my property and cause it to be an unfit environment to live in by blocking out air and sunlight. I cannot understand why the city would allow this when the developers could modify their plans so that we could survive.

Regards

Brenda Holmes

Back up to top of page.

21. Alex Rothenberg Unit 325

Greetings Supervisor Daly,

I am writing you to respectfully urge yourself and the entire Board of Supervisors to rethink the steps towards approval for the building project planned adjacent to the Baycrest Towers. Please find more information at lookcare.com

I have lived at the Baycrest #325 and owned there since 1999. I have never had much of a view, and never planned on having one. I can see an inch of water if I press my face on the glass in the living room. But I have had clean air to breath and regularly enjoy the rooftop gardens and especially the pool/hot tub area we have between the two towers. It is my understanding that the developer has a few different options for their build out. Some of these options are healthier for the residents of the Baycrest. I am the kind of person who shows up to City Council Meetings and BOS meetings to learn about my community and how it all fits together. As well, I understand that it must be very difficult to make everyone happy. I urge you to take a very close look at the project. It may have to go back to planning staff for more work, or maybe a new EIR needs to be ordered. It is my understanding that if nothing is done, the project as it is currently proposed, is not the healthiest building plan. I understand the builder has options while still fitting the parameters for how you see the area built out. We don't have much dirt to build on, and buildings in SF usually stay put for a long time. It is VERY important to all of us that the healthiest option is the path we all take.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Alex Rothenberg
Baycrest #325

Back up to top of page.

22. Sebastian Arsequel Unit 913

Dear San Francisco Supervisors, Supervisor Daly:
I am a long-time resident of Baycrest Towers and I am currently aware of the proposed plan to construct a wall outside of our condominium and courtyard units. I ask that you carefully review the plan, as it greatly affects not only views of the Bay Bridge but also our use and enjoyment of the courtyard and common areas. The wall would diminish not only our units’ resale values but also their appeal to urban dwellers. The courtyard is used by many of us to relax, providing sunshine and fresh air. Environmentally it also diminishes the wildlife that are attracted to our area from our gardens.
Please review the proposed plan we have submitted to provide compatible construction alternatives. Thank you for your time in this matter.

Sincerely,
Sebastien Arseguel
Baycrest Towers Resident, Unit 913

Back up to top of page.

23 Win & Pat Westfall Unit 910

Dear Supervisors:

We are the owners of Unit 910 at the BayCrest, 201 Harrison Street. We have owned at BayCrest for twenty years and have enjoyed and appreciated the wonderful courtyard and pool area which is a part of our building.

The proposed building at 430 Main Street will close in our courtyard and create a "hole" that will be neither healthy nor attractive. Changes in the design of this proposed building can allow construction which will not destroy our environment.

Please carefully review our position and proposals (we have a website I invite you to visit at http:/www.lookcare.com) and support our request for a redesign of the building that will be compatible with our community.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Win & Pat Westfall
Owners, Unit 910, BayCrest

Back up to top of page.

24 Jack Kleytman Unit 305

Dear Supervisors,

I am a resident of 201 Harrison. Building of 430 Main/429 Beale will close off air, seal our building in exhaust pollutants and cut off sun from me and my 8 year old daughter. We and 288 other residents would like you to do something about it and do not let this happen.

Our 201 Harrison building is the building that has made this neighborhood possible, we were there like pioneers and now this is how City thanks us!

The City has already let us down once, when permitting our building with windows facing South, where the proposed development will raise. Now an insult being added to an injury and we were explained "We are sorry, but the City needs affordable by design housing" The affordable by design concept is mumbo-jumbo, a decoy to secure construction, the decoy, which will dissipate the moment this building hits the rental/real estate market. You all know it! Why the City should generate tax revenue at the expense of our sinking property values. The Bay view is a tangible commodity and we are unjustly taken this commodity from. This is an unjust enrichment for the developer Zupchik. We are middle class folk, an endangered species these days, fighting every day to keep our apartments ownership (several people have defaulted already) that are about to be given for a wealthy developer’s breakfast by the City which we pay property taxes to safe guard us from situations alike. This is UNFAIR!

430 Main/429Beale will have full central HVAC to exhaust cars fumes from the Bay Bridge, while its solid concrete wall will bottle up our building with no HVAC and thus putting us in harm’s way. Why?! What is the "greater good" in slowly gas chambering 288 families?!

Building this project is not only morally wrong. It’s stupid and unfair! It’s against every policy of the neighborhood plan. The developer Zupchik is not building in the middle of a desert. He cannot build all he wants, even if he find artificial loop holes in San Francisco building code. The wall will bring an enormous shadow and my child will be raised in a darkened bedroom. Lives of 288 households will be affected in the most profound, damaging manner and this negative effect will remain continuous and cumulative for years and years to come. How are you weighing the "greater good"? It will affect my daughter’s life and should it be your child, you would have a different concept of "greater good". This is unfair! UNFAIR! UNFAIR!

STOP this development immediately!!!

Jack Kleytman,
Owner of unit 305

Back up to top of page.

25. Ann Bailey & Boren Chertkov, Unit 627

Dear Supervisor Daly,

Please stop the developer of 430 Main/429 Beale from walling in the courtyard at the Baycrest, 201 Harrison.

This has been a dispiriting process. Earlier this year, we received a letter from the developer of 430 Main/429 Beale, telling us that he was building an 8-story building 3 feet from our building, that he was before the Planning Commission for variances relating to light and air in 3 weeks, and that he was convening a community meeting to show us what he was building. There was no effort to get community input, and clearly an effort to stifle controversy by informing the neighbors at the last possible minute. (The Chair of the Planning Commission called this behavior "despicable", and "not the way we do business in San Francisco".) Hearing grave objections from the neighbors about the design of the building, which would wall up the neighboring courtyard, the Commission denied the developer's application and sent him back to discuss his proposal with the neighbors.

After a series of perfunctory meetings, the developer announced that he would move the building back from 3 feet to 5 feet from our building, and 10 feet in the center, but that he could not possibly make it shorter or turn the design around as the neighbors had requested. (The chair of the Appeals Board, who had served on the Planning Commission said "of course he could change it; it would just reduce his profit margin".)

The developer is not even required to develop an EIR, since this project is within the Rincon Hill Plan, which makes much of the need for open space and liveability in an area with no parks. The problem is that the project as proposed would wall up the Baycrest courtyard (a courtyard required by the city's own planning process, presumably for these same reasons), blocking light and air, and trapping all of the pollution from the Bay bridge in a closed area.

Please reverse this flawed planning process, and send the developer back to the drawing board to design something more in keeping with the existing buildings and the size of the lot. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ann Bailey & Boren Chertkov
Baycrest #627

Back up to top of page.

26. Charles Johnson, Unit 712

Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:

I have been an owner and resident at BayCrest for since 2001. While I acknowledge the developer's right to build, it is only fair to have a harmonious living plan for all. BayCrest has 288 units with approximately 500 occupants including families, handicapped people and elderly people who utilize the outside spaces. If the developer is granted variances and his building remains an 8-story block, BayCrest residents will be living under a large dark wall (the backside of his building), blocking air and light to our courtyard.

I know the city is sympathetic to the needs of its citizens, and so many of these owners (like myself) who purchased at BayCrest are hard working middle income people, whose homes are decreasing in value. There is also concern that, because the developer will be contributing over $2,000,000 to the city, that his plan will be allowed, as the city wants and needs his contribution.

The developer has his team of lawyers and staff, but we, the BayCrest owners are on our own. I believe the Board of Supervisors represents the regular citizens (that would be us, the owners), and urge you, on our behalf, to carefully review and consider the developer's 430 Main current design very carefully and thoroughly.

I respectfully ask that you reject his poorly designed plan and decline the requested variances that so negatively affect our environment and open space, and ask him to redesign his project, with better livability for all. Please review the link below for more information.

http://www.lookcare.com/

Thank You all for your consideration on this very important issue!

Charles L. Johnson
Unit 712, 201 Harrison Street

Back up to top of page.

27. David Kellis Unit 726

Dear San Francisco Board Of Supervisors:

We are writing to address our strong concerns with the proposal for 430 Main
project and how the airflow, light, and building massing will affect our neighborhood livability issues. It will destroy air quality.

Our concern with this current design is that it will enclose
the courtyard and remove virtually all direct sunlight and movement of air
creating an extremely unhealthy amount of pollution given what we already get
from the bridge. This will be a travesty for all residents. Currently we have
free airflow through this courtyard. It is not just the residents facing the
courtyard but all residents that currently make use of all the amenities the
courtyard provides for the BayCrest Community.

We are very worried about the quality of air from the bay bridge and the
high traffic in our neighborhood that will trap the pollution in the small space
left between our building and 430 Main.
We respectfully request that an environmental impact study be done by the
developer to assess the air
pollution issues. In addition, we believe that the developer should not have been
exempt from conducting an environmental review.

We’re not asking that the 430 building not be built, we’re asking for a
reasonable plan that continues our livable neighborhood. We’re asking that the
430 Main project doesn’t build the largest building possible in the smallest
space and devastate our quality of living.

We've lived in Rincon Hill for 5 years. Many people have lived here since 1991.
The residents of BayCrest have made the Rincon Hill community what it is today.
The developer has his team of lawyers and staff, but we, the BayCrest owners
are on our own.

We believe the Board of Supervisors represents the regular
citizens (that would be us, the owners), and we urge you, on our behalf, to
carefully review and consider the developer's 430 Main current design and
exemption from environmental review.

Thank you for your time.

David Kellis #726

Back up to top of page.

28. Jack & Jean Lai, Unit 304

To the Honorable members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors

My husband and I and our daughter are each owners of two San Francisco Bay Crest condominiums, Units 304 and 506.

We are saddened by the problems created by the proposed building at 430 Main Street which will close in our courtyard and could easily create air flow & health problems for our BayCrest residents.

We respectfully direct your attention to our www.lookcare.com website which succinctly spells out the concerns that Bay Crest residents have for the need of design changes that will not destroy our Bay Crest environment by the construction of the 430 Main Street building. Please review our proposals brought to your attention on this website prior to the October 20th hearing.

Surely we can arrive at an agreeable design which would be suitable for both the Main Street project as well as the Bay Crest residents.

We thank you in advance for your attention to this request. You will most definitely have 500 grateful Bay Crest resident voters in your debt.

Sincerely,

Jack and Jean Lai
Bay Crest Owners 304

Back up to top of page.

29. Bonnie Liu, Unit 425

Dear San Francisco Board of Supervisors:

My name is Bonnie Liu and I am the owner of Unit 425 at the BayCrest, 201 Harrison Street. I bought my unit at BayCrest over 5 years ago and it is the first and only property I have owned. I have enjoyed and appreciated the wonderful courtyard and pool area which is a part of our building, and for the most part I have been excited about a lot of the new developments happening in the neighborhood as well.

However, I am fearful that the proposed building at 430 Main Street will have a significant negative impact on BayCrest and its surrounding environment. I think it will cause more harm than good, with ways in which it cuts off air flow and sunlight. I am hopeful that all the new developments, including this one, can find a way to co-exist symbiotically. I support a revision to the design of the proposed building so that it will not negatively impact the harmony of the BayCrest grounds.

I would appreciate if you could visit http://www.lookcare.com for more information about the matter. Many of us concerned owners and residents of BayCrest have consolidated our positions and proposals regarding this project.

Thank you for your time & consideration.

Bonnie Liu
Owner, Unit 425, BayCrest

Back up to top of page.

30. Judy Hutchinson, Unit 109

Dear Supervisor Daly,

As my elected representative on the Board of Supervisors, I am writing to you regarding a new housing project 430 Main Street. My family are residents in the neighboring building, 201 Harrison Street. I have serious serious concerns on the health impact on my family (especially my children who are about the age of your children) if this building is allowed to proceed as proposed.

There are 288 units of primarily working class families already living in 201 Harrison who will be impacted. The demographics of this building are quite different than many typical South Beach/Rincon Hill developments, such as Portside or Infinity or 200 Brannan. These are not the pied a terres families who stop by the city periodically. We are working families living here, 24/7.

Background:

The Rincon Hill area, where these buildings are/will be located is an extremely dense corridor of the city DIRECTLY under the Bay Bridge.

My understanding is that 430 Main Street technically passed all specifications based on 2005 environmental regulations. However, this is problematic on two fronts -- since 2005, there has been much more advanced studies and knowledge on the health impacts of pollution, particularly pollution from the Bay Bridge! The proposal would not pass if based on the updated knowledge and regulations. Second, a dense downtown under the bridge location is quite different than a low traffic low density location -- the same technical specifications of how closely a building can be to another and thus obstruct light, air flow, etc should not be the same. To illustrate, the impact and health effect of a 12" space between two buildings located under the Bridge is not the same as 12" space between two buildings located in St Francis Woods.

Unfortunately, written regulations do not necessarily take this into account. That is why I am thankful we have the ability to have human oversight to consider human, moral, health factors and not just the letter of the law or a rule of measurement before allowing a project to go forward.

Solutions

There are proposals in place that would mitigate the health impact of 430 Main Street. True, the developer may not see as large a profit as if he did not have to implement the mitigating changes.

But we must consider the longer term impact on human lives and not just the short term dollar and cents that would accrue to the developer. The families and residents already living in 201 Harrison will be see a direct impact to their health. The cost to them and society to have their health conditions treated will far outweigh any additional monetary benefit accrued to the small group of developers.

Please note that you may not hear from that many individuals from 201 Harrison is precisely the fact that so many are working families too busy trying to make a living. Many also do not feel that their voices make a difference or trust the governmental processes.

I speak for them and myself when I write to yourself and the Board to ask that an updated environmental review be applied to the 430 Main Street Project.

As I tell my kids, if you know better, than you should do better. If we ask that of children, surely, we can ask that of adults.

Thank you for your consideration!

Judy Hutchinson
201 Harrison Street
Unit 109

Back up to top of page.

31. Peter Chang, Unit 1023

Dear Supervisor Daly,

I have been an owner as well as a resident of a 400-square-feet studio in the BayCrest Condominium (201 Harrison St.) since 1992. Back then, BayCrest was the only place I could afford to enjoy San Francisco living. I have seen the prices of BayCrest properties for sale dropping significantly since the Planning Commission’s approval of the 430 Main/429 Beale Project.

However, I am not writing you to complain of the loss of property value. I am most concerned of the detrimental environmental impacts with the current design, which would block the air-flow and trap the pollutants to the BayCrest premise from traffic congestions of surrounding streets and the Bay Bridge. As I have stayed unemployed for most of the last 2 plus years, I cannot move to or afford anywhere else.

I would like to offer a few my observations related to the 430 Main/429 Beale Project:

The 430 Main/429 Beale Project application was submitted on September 27, 2007 and the BayCrest Community was completely kept in the dark until ten days before the first scheduled Planning Commission hearing in February, 2009 even though the project sponsor’s office is right next to the BayCrest Condominium.

This serves as the first sign of red flag that the sponsor, Chris Zupsic, had a hidden agenda and was unwilling to disclose it until he was required to by law. Zupsic and his team have demonstrated that an open communication with good faith to resolve issues concerning their neighbors is not an option since inception of the project; instead, they elect to endlessly attack the opposition with the pitiful "Bay views" cliché. Since February, in every town hall meeting I attended, Zupsic showed little interest in collaborating to modify the plan that would maximize his profitability so the negative impacts to the Rincon Hill Community as a whole could be mitigated to the minimum. The town hall meetings were only Zupsic’s artificial means to show the Planning Commission on paper that he had done outreach to the neighbors.

Tish Layton appeared in both 04/09/09 and 05/14/09 Planning Commission’s hearings and indicated that she was a BayCrest resident and a supporter of the proposed project (at 04:14:50 mark of http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=20&clip_id=7589 and 06:28:57 mark of http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=20&clip_id=7811).

It does not seem to be a coincidence that Layton moved out of BayCrest right after the Planning Commission had approved the 430 Main/429 Beale Project. She appeared to be cozy with the project sponsor’s team at the hearings and her own LinkedIn page (http://www.linkedin.com/in/tishlayton) exhibits that she has years of connections to the construction industry.

Robert Vickers, Director of Homeowners Association Board of Portside spoke in 05/14/09 Planning Commission’s hearing that his board met and fully approved the project. (at 06:30:05 mark of http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=20&clip_id=7811).

It was confirmed later that the Homeowners Association Board of Portside never made such a decision. Robert Vickers is a friend of the project sponsor and his statement in front of the Planning Commission was completely fabricated.

Garth Davis, VP of Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital stated in 05/14/09 Planning Commission’s hearing that he had interfaced with San Francisco HUD office on behalf of the project sponsor and FHA Section 220 program would be the source of financing (at 06:10:40 mark of http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ MediaPlayer.php?view_id=20&clip_id=7811).

As of 10/02/09, I talked on the phone to Margaret Salazar, Chief, Insured Production of HUD San Francisco Multifamily Hub. Ms. Salazar made clear in no uncertain terms to me that HUD had not received any Section 220 application from the 430 Main/429 Beale Project. She also explained to me that any Section 220 application received from October on would not have sufficient time for an early 2010 approval.

What I try to demonstrate is that the BayCrest community is up against an organized and well- funded group that has not been and will not be hesitant to employ deceiving and below-the-belt tactics to achieve its goal to maximize profits while disregarding the welfare of the neighbor next door. It was not too long ago when Wall Street had the same approach, which resulted one of the worst U.S. recessions and directly led to my unemployment

Like other opponents of the project, I am not against job creation in the City. We only appeal to the Board of Supervisors that the harmful impacts of the variances and exceptions granted have been overlooked, thanks to the project sponsor’s deliberate short notice, and need to be re-evaluated.

As the supervisor representing our district, you have done a lot of good for the community. I urge you, on our behalf, to sway your fellow supervisors that a thorough environmental impact report of the 430 Main/429 Beale Project is necessary before the commencement of construction. As a responsible parent, you would not put your lovely children Jack and Grace in harm’s way; please help the youngsters at BayCrest not be in one.

Sincerely,

Peter T. Chang
BayCrest Unit 1023

P.S.
1. In response to the relentless attacks of Chris Zupsic and his team, attached is a picture of the precious "Bay view" from my studio
2. Mr. Zupsic has avoided/ignored/dodged answering why he failed to inform BayCrest of his project until February 2009 whenever questioned. Please ask him again on 10/20/09 and insist that he answer it this time.