to 200 foot chunks and we've broken up to five pieces. the first one is a through the block muse, we call it market muse, it's 40 foot wide and it goes through to the private alley. at least it shows it on the street, we have an interior skin that comes out at that point. you can see commercial underneath it to the right and a common space for the apartment on the left. this shows our landscape architect is cmg, this is the space they did at the plaza and we're proposing a similar type space, it is an urban muse, not tremendously lush but an urban space with a lot of flexibility. then the southbound gap, we're calling it lincoln square, it doesn't go all the way through but it leads to this green space which would be [inaudible] do you want me to stop, or i can -- i don't have much longer. >> if you want to wrap up, that's great. >> there you're looking into it, it's a publicly accessible, basically a park open, except at night, there's redwood trees there, cmg's concept and it's bigger than this, this picture is on third street, it's 90 by 125 feet, so a significant open space and the three bedroom units are rounded at ground level with stoops. very urban space, it would divide this property from the future affordable housing, it's a 40 foot muse much like this, pedestrian, three blocks base, you get a little commercial space, it's got stoops, then there's the retail, you can see it goes all the way around, it's not pink in real life. this shows the building and you can see the dark color we're proposing, quart 10 there, they're making -- being contextual with the historic buildings in the area. this is that retail 17 foot clear there with uses that are smaller divided up. this shows some recent retail we did on gough street which is not a nice treat but it's real possible, it's not retail if you do it right and questions, feedback, thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. baker. >> okay. opening it up for public comment. celiashumen. >> [inaudible] hester, these are two different case numbers, i wish you could do more than three minutes for the public because we have to speak to two projects, and you acknowledge the difficulty by giving more time to the project sponsor. two projects totally. >> commissioners, this item was called up, both of these items were called up together. it has been your practice to allow three minutes for each speaker. it is the pleasure of the commission chair to change that. >> let's stay with three minutes, i have two speaker cards here, if there's not an overwhelming amount of people, we can revisit that. (calling speaker names). >> hi, thank you, good afternoon, my name is seal yeah shoe m*n and i am here on behalf of the owner of 1rhode island street, we are a property that is diagonal to the 1 henry adams street project. we're happy to see that parcel being developed, it will be a good thing for the area but we do have some concerns particularly with regard to the height of the building. we feel that it would create some shadowing issues and some esthetic issues in terms of the relation to the surrounding buildings. we -- there are, you know, i was reading in the eir, they were commenting the project would not substantially alter the existing pattern of heights and would not disrupt the visual continuity of the existing buildings, but we feel that it is basically, the height is an issue for us. none of the existing taller buildings in that area are more than four storeys high. the two additional storeys would make this i think -- have a huge, huge negative impact to the visual of the area. the existing tall buildings that are there do have smaller buildings surrounding them and this 1 henry adams would definitely take away an entire block of some of that visual relief. other issues for us have to do with parking issues. we understand there's certain zoning and regulations but we think the reality is although transit first is a good thing, if we have residents moving into this area, especially many of them coming into the city from out of the area, you know, probably takes jobs in the high-tech sector, they're probably going to have cars with thel, whether or not they use them to commute on a daily basis is one thing, we're wondering where these cars will be parked. we don't have available street parking for the small businesses and the customers that are there right now, so we are concerned that there will be parking issues as a result of this construction. a lot of our clients in that area are designers, they come from all over northern california, they have to drive there so we're concerned that will put further stress on the businesses in the area and finally, pdr zoning, 1 henry adams street sets a precedent of the pdr zoning in that area, with select buildings in the area, with zinga and now the 1 henry adams street project, they have been given approval for mixed use and office occupancy, we urge the planning commission to reconsider further relaxing the restrictive pdr zoning for the adjacent property as well and i thank you very much. >> thank you. >> karen? >> if your name's been called, please come up to the microphone. >> i'm sorry, i do have two other cards. david woodside and richard stephens. >> good afternoon, commission, i'm david whiteside, i'm a small business owner in the area, i have a number of small restaurant cafes and i have been in that capacity since 1999 and prior to that, i had a consulting business and currently have one as well since 1979. as i've seen the area change since i've been there for quite a long time, it's been through many iterations from the days where it was set for the streets of san francisco and broken window industrial buildings to the design center coming in and starting to revision of that area by henry adams. anyway, to get to the point, now that there has started to become a residential neighborhood, it's been a positive to our businesses, but what i'm feeling and what other businesses are feeling, there is a we, it's sort of almost there but it's not quite. there's not enough people living in the neighborhood to provide businesses with -- to stay open on the weekend and there is very little night business out there. i feel the addition of these two buildings would provide just what we need to present the massing and the attraction of other businesses to make it so that we can be more successful, have longer hours and not rely only on lunch and coffee business, so that's why i'm in support of these two buildings and in particular, 801 brannan, so thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> a couple of more name, sue vaughn, caleb [inaudible], thank you. >> good afternoon to members of the planning commission, my naifp is rich stephens, i've been a business owner for 25 years. way too long to tell you all the changes i've seen take place in that amount of time, but if you were to look at the show place square area today in which 801 brannan and 1 henry adams are a part of, it's vibrant. there are jobs in the form of zinga, adobe, add vant, ab and b coming into the area, with all the jobs going on, it makes sense to add the mixed use development with housing and with services. it gives people a place to work, to live and to live life. it's a wonderful area and i think the developments will only help the area. there was a time when the concourse and 801 brannan and bh the ice factory of 1 henry adams were good for the area but i encourage you to embrace the change, this is the time and the direction of the neighborhood. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon again, commissioners, sue vaughn with the sierra club. i'm going to reiterate the sierra club's position that there should be a maximum of .5 parking, personally, that may -- i think that's too much but that's the sierra club position, .5 parking and i'm going to put this book right down here, high tide on main street, we don't know -- every car we permit pushes us closer to the tipping point and the tipping point is climate change, melting of the icecap, melting of antarctica and greenland icecap and sea level rise. this is not a scare tactic, this is real and we need to have this reflected in the decisions we make here in san francisco at the planning department level and planning commission level. and i know that i work in this neighborhood and with one of my co-workers went out to a public event regarding the project a few weeks ago and he asked about public transportation improvements regarding, connected to this project and the response was there were going to be 4, 5 car share parking spaces, there needs to be more coordination between the planning commission and parking in terms of increasing our transportation. in addition, i'm going to show you the letter that i included in my comments for the sierra club right here regarding transit freeway oriented development and this is an example of freeway oriented development. again, i said earlier, this is ringed by a lot of freeways, people can get on the freeway and zip down to the silicon valley and this is not the kind of development we want to be encouraging. if we are truly going to address climate change and i know there are regional efforts to do that, i would encourage you to go as low as possible in parking as you can with these projects. thank you. >> hi, commissioners, i'm caleb from la casina, i wanted to say they've been gone out of their way to understand what the needs of the clients are, we work with 33 business thaz are in various stages of incubation and are looking for physical space in the city, the large majority of our businesses that have a large percent of our businesses have graduated outside of the city because that's where affordable real estate exists, the investment of capital of spaces that they can occupy is a unique opportunity for our client and something that's pretty impressive to me and hopefully we can see in other developments as they come before the city. >> thank you. >> ms. hester, i took when you jumped up to speak on this item when i called public comment as your public comment entry and as you know as a stickler of policy and procedure, -- >> i was making a procedural comment. >> but you are speaking a second time >> i'm not speaking a second time, i'm an attorney, i raise procedural objections. >> you're aiming for an appeal to the board of supervisors, thank you for being so rude. >> is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners, my name is michael mcken na, i'm with the business development department here in san francisco and although normally i come before you to speak in favor of development and projects, today i have a question about the urgency to entitle a project with a developer that is in the midst of sale proceedings, and so to add entitled projects, currently in san francisco, we have close to 30 thousand entitled units yet to be developed. we want to add more entitled units to the portfolio of a lane duct developer instead of this project being developed by the new developer, so selling pipe dreams to the community about projects that could be built but are basically now just becoming something of an entitlement to sell to either equity or avalon bay, whoever inherits these two particular projects is still a concern. i would like this project to be moved forward and continued until it can be brought forth with the actual developer so we know of true projects that are going to be built rather than the idea of project conceptions that can be sold throughout this city and passed on between people that may or may not build them until we have some real truth into development, so thanks. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. >> because we can, and the cars are there. and so that was going to be a lot of my comment, and i would like to say thank you, for doing three weeks ago out reach to the concourse. it is three years too late. and i didn't hear anything. all of the out reach that here has been done on the concourse. it is done by me because of the planning department refused to do any out reach because the owner of the site did not give a list of tenants. out reach, and the green festival and everyone else, was not done because the planning department has ruled and those rules ignore the reality of the concourse having tenants that are up episodic. but no buses mean that people die. and that is the reality. >> and miss ester i thank you for your comments and i tend to agree with you about the necessity for our transportation planning, not just for this project but in general. because 16th street, should be a major conduit for transit and it should be more than buses that takes up the spaces on the street, the subway might be unrelistic but the buses or the light rail or something that connects with third street and connect with bart in the mission district and allow to connect to the other transit things and i think that is something that we need to study, not can standing this is a great project on the subject of transportation and parking, as has been pointing out, the parking is 0.72 allowed as 0.85 and it is not a question of whether people are not going to have cars if you don't provide them with parking. they will still have cars, but instead of living in show place square being close to businesses in san francisco, and relatively close to cal train to get to the silicon valleys they will leave in places like american canyon and drive each further and cause a lot more pollution and makes things worse. i know about this having grown up in the valley i see what happened to dublin and i think that it is terrible that the hills that were once verdant and were very good land were covered with houses and the people are going to have cars and if we make it possible for them to store their cars in an urban environment it is a lot better than having them drive 60 or 100 miles a day. in terms of the actual project, i think that it is very well planned, from a number of different ways, allowing incident, i think that it come out to 205 projected units instead of 107 so that is a big improvement and so the land dedication is well worked out. the design allowing the light into the court yards is extremely well done. >> i do have a couple of concerns on the design, if you could put that on the screen, the comments and responses show of what was going to be harder to see, what i thought was going to be 801 was going to look like and it looks to be much more contextual with the neighborhood even though it has no specific context and more of a tripartide form. a lot of articulation between the different buildings and the heights of the buildings and you know, so i'm not saying that his design is not a good one, a lot more that speak to the show place square, what is the most predominant thing. in regards to mr. baker's design, at 801 brannan, i am a little concerned with some of the areas that face the street are quite well done, i will not call it a flat iron, it is more like a flat wood or paneling, but it has the same effect because it is rounded on the corner and that is a nice treatment there. i like your pleated section, those are nicely done and the balcony are in set in the unit as opposed to what is shown on pages, a1, 14, a115 and a3.2, the brannan commercial and market news they have the stark white siding and i am not sure what attorney it is and a lot of appendages sticking out of them and i don't like that part of the design and i would ask the staff to continue to work with mr. baker to try to make that a little bit richer. if you open your things to 1 a 1.15, you can really see what this look like and they detract from the building a lot. even though some of the lower spaces have the wood. either a little bit more wood or wood simulation or masonry will make it a lot richer. on the other project, the bar project, i think that the best looking area there is the one that is going to be the sales office, leasing office and community room which has a lot of ma sonry and it looks like the richest. i was a little concerned with some of the rendering that came up on the screen. i thought what i have in the packets look a lot better. i am hoping that when we end up is more like the packet and less than on the screen. and when that building and when it was viewed from a distance looked pretty imposing and stark and i think that we make sure that the colors and the materials are subtle enough to fit into the area and again i would ask that both architects continue to work with the staff along those lines, i think that the potential is there certainly, the design and the allotment of the open spaces, and the density and the siding is good it is just how it presents smf the interior spaces, i think that it needs some work. so those are mine and finally in regards to the concourse itself, sponsor, made reference to a lot of sites where the present tenants could i think, find spaces for their activities. i think that this is a very good project and i think that it is exactly what we need one speaker spoke about mixed use and i think that is clearly, there is going to be people, more people living here, the people who will not only work here, but also will take care of their nighttime activities and make it a much more vibrant area of the city. and then someone else spoke about the entitlement for a project that may be sold in the future. and the entitlement that goes with the project if we think that it is the proper project then we should entitle it and regardless if it is sold to another entity, that entity is bound by our conditional use or in this case, it is not a 309, i think that it is a 323 approval, i forget the exact number. but the same rules apply. so those are my feelings, i think that it is real good, and i would like to see a little bit of work on the design and trying to make sure that it is as contextal as possible. particularly with the rich buildings of show place square. >> mr. moore? >> i want to speak to both projects because i believe that it is the transformational power that the concept is extremely strong to really create change in the larger area, rather than just looking like one larger project on its own. i think that it is between the two projects together with the dedication for the land for the portable adjacent housings i think that the best idea that i have seen in a long time. what i hope is the number of units particular affordable peaceful hold has been carefully considered and i would ask mr. lee to perhaps talk to us about land take down and renovation of this project because that is obviously in all of our miepds, together, with finding an architect that i have not already used that the appearances of this building has to compliment and complete the context to creating the other two projects. >> the mayor's director of house, thank you for those questions. this is sort of the pro-toe typical land dedication that they had envisioned as part of the eastern neighborhoods, it is part of the larger partial and i understand that there are concerns raised about the fact that we are getting 202 units of affordable housing, clearly the mayor is paying, or the city of san francisco is paying for 150 of those and we have 55 or so on site and so we are getting a greater capacity to build affordable housing as part of the mixed income neighborhood. i think that one of the goals of the eastern neighborhood's discussion was to build upon what worked so well for redevelopment where we sort of had affordable housing partials, enter mixed with market race partials as part of a new neighborhood as opposed to having it all, you know, single income or single use.