and here i circumstance um navigate both the auditorium with an a diesed laser etched anadized panel. it brings back the notion of the landscape that was once there. the glass curtain wall has mylar orange archival circles on it. at certain times of the day, kind of a low tech transformation of kind of a lyrical day of oranges kind of falling. this is the vitrius bench i did for millennium towers on mission street. and it's a cast resin bench in the shape of an elipse that's lit with led and embedded with cast acornses to respond to the glass wall in the back there, which is a glass with the image

of an oak grove. these are some past projects that have been completed. and i talk about 474 natoma. i plan to work on the eight-story elevator shaft. the name of the piece is called global garden. it's comprised of ombre panels. we bring you a sample right there so you can actually see what the material is. it's a very innovative new material that is comprised of a set of pixels that are raised which catch the light which forms that image. my artwork will be an amalgam of different plants from around the world which forms -- which forms a garden that cascades down that elevator shaft. each panel -- there's 36 panels total. each panel is approximately four feet by 3-1/2 feet. the perforation of the pixel is

5/8, comprises 94 2 total square feet. and it leaves both a representational piece as well as an abstracted piece because the panel, as you can see from these oblique angles, give you that definition of the leaf. all 36 panels will represent different plants, plants like ginger, cilantro, morning glory vines, that represents philippines, india, china, the americas, africa, asia and southeast asia. they cascade down from the full height of the elevator tower. so, it's kind of bringing this marker of a garden to the building. questions? >> any questions, commissioners? commissioner antonini. >> yeah, thank you. i appreciate your work, very interesting. just looking at the exterior

views of the building, and this doesn't have anything to do with your piece, but there's two different renderings of the colors. one is more of a muted and subtle a pierce and the other is kind of a very bright appearing -- i mean, i'm not sure which one they're going to go with, but that probably doesn't [inaudible] your piece. >> you'd have to come to the microphone. and identify yourself for the record, please. >> hi, i'm with the architects working with the 474 natoma building. i believe that was a rendering scene with the building to highlight the artwork on that one piece that was a straight elevation the colors the building would have. >> okay. i kind of like the muted one better. you know, it's a little more, not quite so shocking. i mean, there's a couple buildings you see from the

freeway. some people like them. the color are a little bit too bright and they just don't really -- i don't like that. that's a matter of personal taste. i think the more muted colors are a little bit better, but other people may have other ideas on that. okay, thank you for explaining what we're seeing. i think your work is fine. it's just the color scheme of the building and how bright those colors are going to be are on an alley that is fairly obscure. not many people are going to see it. but as far as people seeing it from distances away because it's a fairly narrow alley. your work, of course, they'll see anybody who walks by. >> it meant -- actually, we specifically chose material that would have that kind of reflection and luminescence. because it is an alley, it gives attention to that site in

apositive way. >> it's a question of how intense the colors are. they're going to stand out even in their more muted colors, but that's just a matter of taste. >> commissioner wu. >> i want to thank you for your work. i appreciate the sort of nod to the diversity of people that will move into this housing. again, i want to thank you. i want to ask staff a side question which is what is the targeted ami for the future residents of the building? >> i don't have that information off the top of my head since it's a few years ago. i can get that information to you. >> if you can send it to the commission. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> for anybody who has seen drew's school in action with the garden, i think this is a great idea and i think it really speaks about the idea of vertical gardens. the only question i would ask the artist as well, the

architect, as to whether or not the way this particular piece is attached to the elevator is final, and that is an open-ended question because the architecture seems very dominant without really giving the piece stops an idea of being more prominent than the elevator itself. i found the framing of what the elevator shows not quite fully appreciative of the art, but i might not understand it because i don't see the detailing on this. i just want to raise it as a question, not a criticism. i think the piece is very strong and i would love it to really read as a garden. >> your question has to do with the way that the pieces are attached. it is a permanent installation and basically on an architectural level it forms a rain screen. so, it's the same attachment as

a rain screen. i don't have all the architectural details. they've all been drawn. >> thanks for answering that. i'm very supportive of it, but i might follow-up with a particular question to [speaker not understood]. she can communicate what i'm asking. thank you. >> okay. okay, finishing up the last item for public comment on the informational item just presented. >> okay. >> seeing none, this is not

general public comment yet. this is a comment on the last item presented. >> okay. thank you. mr. president, and just for members of the public, generally we don't allow standing in this room during the hearing process. it seems that we're getting a little crowded. we are trying to get from overflow. and once overflow has been identified, there will be no standing in this room. thank you. commissioners, if we can move forward to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address this commission on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes, keeping in mind two things. that you may not address an agenda item during this category and you may not exceed the 15-minute time limit. i have two speaker cards.

>> one speaker card, dino [speaker not understood]. and hiroshi fukado. good afternoon, commissioners. linda avery, thank you so much. you run a clean house. i learned a lot watching you and also you're very knowledgeable about all the things we talk about, all the cases going on. thank you for the two extra minutes. this is going to be a little bit of a long one. i've been looking at and two weeks ago i talked about an american public display of art that we have in our city and i was laugh tog myself not because there is anything funny about crack houses, but because i saw folsom and natoma and transfused basil and ginger on the walls. i brought a project proposal for 450 o'farrell street and this is two buildings that are owned by the [speaker not

understood]. and right here we have 450, that's their church building and 474 is a building they own next to it. it's indicative of american history over the last 120 years when this religious group came to power and earned enough money to not only purchase and build this building by 1923, there's been a span of 30 years, but then secretly purchased the building next to t. i've been trying to put some pressure on this organization to do something as well as the city to do something with the building next to it and the building next to it is our public display of art. i've been here before and i've showed you guys a blank canvas. this is a picture of the building of four years ago. at 474 natoma street we just built a 55 unit with art on the wall. this house is a nobody except for some people outside. in 2008 there's a letter from the director of planning to the organization which owns this

building that says this location has the potential to dramatically improve the urban quality of the immediate area. the department would likely be supportive of a thoughtful proposal at this site. that to this first map, a proposal to knock down both of those buildings and build a 140-unit low-income house which was not approved because it is a historic church in the area. and we have not heard from them since 2007 or 2008, maybe 2009. so, you haven't heard from them for over three years. and the case was closed in 2009 because we hadn't heard from them. so, if you guys can imagine, if you guys left a building for four years, it would turnout to look like this. and, so, we would like to invite all of you guys to come read with us at 474 o'farrell street. they have fused the plywood with the plaster board, the

purple is coming off, and it's not a pretty sight. and i'm going to leave you guys with a little note that i have in my office which says instead of looking for something in the dark, turn on the light. i'm not sure who richard hanaim is. he has been working on this project four years or more than that, but i'd like to see some answers from this church group and the organization and i think we need richard and the organization here to tell us what is going on with this building. thank you guys so much. have a good day. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is hiroshi fakuda [speaker not understood] land use and housing committee. i would second linda avery for her fine work and keeping

order. i'm here today primarily because the transportation sustainability program [speaker not understood] was held, i think its was september 25th. so, and it ended october 5th. the problem was that planning department did you good outreach, but in this case the outreach was not very good. and at the scoping meeting when i attended, for q and a, i asked some questions, got some answers and that was not allowed. the only thing allowed was for people to make comments. the meeting was very poorly attended. there were only three public speakers, three members of the public who spoke and made comments. all the other people in the room i think were probably from departments or public transportation agencies.

and i asked for a copy of the comments from the scoping and planning was very good and they gave me a copy and i went through it. [speaker not understood] bart, caltrans, golden gate bridge, et cetera. and very few comments from the public were there because not many people knew about this. and i think it's a very important issue. axile outreach should have been better. i'm hoping that the commission will ask the department to extend the scoping comment period for another 30 days. there are several organizations and coalition neighborhoods that would like to make comments and the problem is that they don't know exactly what the issues are and how to get the questions answered. so, if you provide us with

another 30 days, it will be greatly appreciated. thank you. >> is there any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll take the first item from the consent calendar. >> thank you, commissioners. item number 1, case no. 2012.207c, 201 folsom street (a.k.a. 314 main street). >> good afternoon, president and commissioners. [speaker not understood]. the wrote et before you is a request to extend the original approval for the project at 201 folsom street also commonly known as the sister project to the infinity across the street the planning commission approved the original project on september 4th, 2003 and the project involved new construction with an 80-foot podium for lot coverage to

residential towers of height 350 and 400 feet up to 38,000 square feet of commercial space, up to 725 dwelling units, up to 753 off-street parking spaces for the residential and commercial uses. but then also up to 272 additional parking spaces to replace the existing parking for the adjacent postal service facility that was next door. the planning commission also approved a three-year performance extension to the original project in 2009 and that extension expired on september 3rd of this year. the original approval motion also detailed a scenario and a process for updating the project's design in the future. this is primarily a response to the fact that the adjacent postal service facility may vacate and the 272 replacement parking spaces may no longer be necessary which would dramatically change the podium of the building. the usps did vacate in 2010 and the department did work with

the sponsors on an updated design and that design was brought before you in february of this year. the updated design was a change to the exterior design, but also a slight reduction of the dwelling units and commercial space, major reduction in parking, both in terms of removing the extra parking that was originally provided for the post office and then also reducing the parking to match the reduction in residential and commercial space. but also a significant increase in open space. and those plans were included in your packet. so, the case before you at this time is to modify the original motion and its performance period to add a 12-month extension so that the project will be approved through september 3rd of 2013 next year. no other changes to the original project or the design are being proposed at this time.

for your information, the project sponsors did file for their building permits. there are five separate building permits related to this one development. they did file those permits on july 12th of this year and we have been working to review and process those permits, but this time the site permit has not yet been issued, which is what triggers the need for the extension. the department did not receive any public comment on this case one way or the other. there were several requests for information about the project, but no comment as to support or opposition. the project supports -- the planning department recommends approving the proposal with conditions and that conclude my presentation. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. project sponsor? good afternoon, commissioners. i'm carl shannon, it's a pleasure to be here in front of

you again. we are fully committed to moving forward on this project. as staff represented, we've actually filed for our building permit and our site permit. we've got a full team and doing the construction drawings and getting this project. and its sister affordable housing project at 1400 mission both ready for construction as soon as we can. some of you will remember that part of the original condition put on these projects after they left the commission went, they went to the board of supervisors, an extraordinary commitment to affordable housing to build 25% off-site affordable housing. at the infinity we met that requirement at 900 gilman and 888 seventh. those projects are up and fully occupied. we intend to do that again here working with tndc and a merry core development in the site of

the corner of west mission and 10th. we look forward to bringing both the 201 r project and mission project forward next year. if it weren't for the economic downturn of 2008, we wouldn't need this extension, but we are working full force with both the planning department and dbi to make this a reality. we're here for any questions. my thanks, having been here for a decade, to linda for her hard work in making this place run smoothly. >> thank you. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item?

>> [speaker not understood]. sfgtv will actually -- after you identify yourself. sue hester. i just need a little manipulation help to expand the entire thing. thank you. i have manipulation problems. sue hester. i was involved in the entire rincon hill process and am involved right now in pier 30-32 seawall 330. this is the photo that was in the file for this project. this is the project. this is 30-32. this is seawall at 330. seawall at 330 and piers 30-32

are very active projects. you are about to start the sloping process in the planning department in the next month. and it is a major project. this project on main street, there is only one street besides the embarcadaro and 2nd street that has a straight shot to the embarcadaro from downtown, main street. it's where this project is located. there has been no -- this project was approved nine years ago. it was based on an eir that was done in the previous couple of years. i was involved in all of that. at no point did the analysis include a hotel, an arena, and all of the other thing that are integral parts of the project that is coming through on the property.

we now have a of tuesday night, which is two nights nights ago, hotel proposal on seawall of 330, which is 330 versus this. you have this picture in your file. how do we let a project sit around for nine or 10 years? the eir is -- the final action was nine years ago, but the eir was before that. what is the process for you to take into account that this is a parking resource potentially for the arena? the amount of traffic for the arena and the change of seawall lot 330 based on what you have, i don't think you have information. and i'm just saying the city is very dynamic.

there was not a recession when this project was approved. the recession was in 2008. it's now nearly 2013. and this project was approved nine years ago based on a really old eir by [inaudible]. and i throw that out to you. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is andrew green. i live in sunset. and these buildings are just another representation of what i see as your meat lock of inspiration and respect for the beauty of this city. we are already what people want. we already are, and it seems like you are still trying to become. you know, for years people fought what was the [speaker not understood] of this city,

and this is another representation of the complete destruction of the character of this beautiful place. you really need to look deep inside yourselves and see why, why do you need -- why can't you reign in your desires and the desires of others? there's so much wonderful architecture happening right now. we live in a time of great design and great possibilities and we're just slaughtering this place for garbage. when 1 rincon hill was built, we were supposed to realize that in the 25-year plan, part of our plan was to take that building down. when you look out from twin peaks, you see all four spans of the great bridge lifts your spirit, so beautiful, city by the bay. boom, boom, boom, we just destroy it. it's a shame. it's a shameful behavior. please, me and others, when this project came up, i was taking care of my friend sick and dying. he was living in an sro, vietnam veteran.

i sacrificed, 24/7, i counted on my representatives to do the right thing. you're just doing the wrong thing. what should we think other than shameful behavior? please, no more skyscrapers south of market. there is so much that can be done other than this. it's just disrespectful and it's disrespectful of planning department in the late 60s, early '70s, alan jacobs, people who cared about planning for the future of all our citizenry. it seems like we've given up on we the people and we're just going for the upper or middle class. and having, you know, we put some money into affordable housing, but it does president really solve the problem of the cost of housing. it's just a little bandaid. we've got to get to the roots. the roots are us, we the people. we are the cause. -- of the increase of housing because we're insecure of our financial fusev. anyway, i speak out against

these buildings. thank you. * futures. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? opening it up to commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. and this is -- >> public comment is closed. thank you. commissioner antonini. >> as we remember from our hearing in february of this year when we looked at the evolution, where it's actually fortuitous that the building was not able to be built because of economic conditions along the time when the infinity was built, which is a couple of very fine buildings. but these buildings, i think based upon the redesign, will be even better. and we were able to hear that at our informational hearing. and also in response to what had happened with the infinity project sponsor consistent with our approval has made the building, you know, with fewer units consistent with what we're allowed to change, with more two and three bedroom

units because of the realization that the infinity has a very high number of families with children in response to that, this has been modified accordingly. and, so, also, you know, the design changes as were described in the fact that there is more of commercial retail space on the main floor as well as more open space and in the original plan. so, we have a superior product that's ready, that's shovel ready. in fact, it's ready. the shovels are just about in the ground. so, it only makes sense to approve this and i think it's the complement to what was originally approved. and as we are seeing with some of the other projects that have been delayed during the economic downturn are starting to move forward as we see cranes throughout the city. it's the beginning of the completion of the rincon hill plan which we had envisioned and to a large degree approved, and we're going to see a lot more of that in the next year.

and then i think this is an excellent project and, of course, the extension is a formality because we're about ready to go, but it's not more than a formality. it does have to be approved, this extension, and we will a year from now see a building that's under construction and well on its way to come out of the ground. so, i would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i think the [speaker not understood] presentation of this particular project, although i always like to take a second look indeed, answer all the questions for improving those elements which i think jointly the department as well as the commission had raised before, i think it's a responsive -- good response to those issues and i am in support given that the february presentation was thorough and indeed convinced me this was [inaudible].