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. and this land dedication accomplishes that. i think that one of the advantages of the land dedication, is that we are partially entitled through this process, and that, entitlement

in terms of the number of units, speeds approval process and relative to all other sites. so, in terms of looking in my pipeline, and seeing, what parcels i have, this affordable housing and land dedication has created an entitled parcel and this will come or could conceivablely come on line sooner, provided that we have the funds to do so. i think that in terms of the question that the context and how, the affordable housing would relate to this surrounding buildings. i think that we have a wonderful tract record of utilizing very talented architects who take that into consideration, including the architect of record on the 801 brannan site and really hope, and not hope, but we really do expect that anything that is

designed on the affordable housing parcel will be in context with this, with what is being designed, for the not only for these other two parcels but for the balance of the neighborhood. and i think that the track record of our affordable housing developers have indicated that they could do that and do that successfully. in terms of the numbers of units on site. we will clearly you know, try to achieve the greatest number of units because that makes the greatest sense for us in terms of the economy of scale in terms of the particular development and so our goal will be to try to achieve the limit that you are authorizing at 150 for the site. and on that particular site. and that will be part of the request for proposals. and the i think that the only question, is really the question of timing in terms of the pipeline and you know all of the competing needs from on

the housing trust fund but they are clearly very interested in this neighborhood. we don't have affordable housing in this immediate neighborhood now. we think that affordable housing is a public benefit that should be shared with all neighborhoods of san francisco and so we look forward to developing it on the site. >> thank you for that comment, as far as the architecture goes, i think that the skillfulness on how both projects are presented to including the detail and does not really require anything in common, the one that i think that i hope and if you want to ask to please come to the podium, normally, we cannot obligate, the execution of the project based on what we see skillfully presented to you here today. what we are approving today is an entitlement, but we are not improving the architecture as we see it or the continued use of the architects, as the

project moves into potential ownership,; is that correct?? >> could you rephrase the question? >> i am asking you, as you are basically potentially being integrated absorbed bought by and i don't have the proper description. the thoughtfulness by when you have deliberate and this project through will be going through someone else what obligations do they have or will there be obligated to deliver it as we are approving it today. >> i think that the value that the buyers of the project associated with the site has to do with the work that has been done to date and you don't necessarily get market rents for a project that looks,

feels, acts and, behaves differently than what we have proposed. i have not reason to believe that the buyers have any intent to change the direction especially difn the fact that they have reviewed the plans as they exist. i have no legal capacity with which to enforce any of that as you guys know but every conversation that we have had leads them to believe that they are interested in leaving where we left off as opposed to changing the direction or the team. >> that just seems to want to... >> thank you. >> one of the things that when the project comes in for permits, the zoning administrator will have to make a call that property ject in front of us for permits is subsan shally in compliance with what they approve. they don't have to hire the same project but the over all bulk in the size of the building and the over all plan will have to be the same as to what you approved today. they could hire a different architect but i think that i would argue that the site plan

in particular changes, we would bring it back to the commission. that does not mean that the architecture would not be different, but, the bulk and the shape and the over all size of the building would have to largely be the same as what you would approve. otherwise we will bring it back to you. >> i mean, i would agree with the public comment. what we are approving today has so many subtleties by which this project comes one out of the thinking of the eastern neighborhood and a tremendous effort which into this and now seeing it for the first time realized in the form that it is and the form that is being asked for approval today, kind of almost makes me want to fall in love with it and say this is what i want to be relating to in the future, and to have the uncertainty, unfortunately of the fact that we are moving on is not necessarily that comforting to me. sorry about that one. leaves us a little bit here on the hot seat. because i have to tell the

director and i cannot unfortunately not mention the project. we are entitled a smaller project, 8 months ago only that i heard from the architect that the entitlement was taken and passed into something else. >> and i cannot unfortunately say what the project is but that happens. >> i am concerned that a project of that magnitude, could create major disappointments if it is not delivered with the subtleties that we are seeing today, i just have to say it. >> it sounds like a conducting agreement or an opportunity for yours truly. >> commissioner wu? >> thank you. >> so i want to thank the project sponsor for his presentation and i think about being up front about the issues on the concourse, if i could say it this way i feel cautiously optimistic for this project. and i like to thank director

lee for the explanation of the on site or the land dedication. so for me the larger question is around building new units and meeting the larger goals of eastern neighborhoods and are we on the path to meeting our goals are we not? and i feel like, the fact that there are the potentials for 205 or 206 is great. does it put too much burden on the city or the pipeline and take money away from other projects that might be in the pipeline for those moneys. i think some what similar parallel feelings about the retail and this, the agreement is really great. i think thinking about how to actually get working class folks from the neighborhoods that are in san francisco right now into jobs or into job opportunities or owning their own small business. i also hope that that does not change if and when the zone is

sold. but, the rest of the retail i assume will be fairly high-end, market rate retail and i have the conversations with the director about this and i just cannot help but feel like san francisco is becoming so fancy and high end and everything is just becoming like a playground for people that are coming here to work in high-tech and maybe to work in other industries, but we are making some of these decisions based on what we are seeing with the ab, and the singa and it is not responding to what is existing in the city right now. that said, i do think that this project has been developed in good faith. i think that the developer has done a good job of responding to community concerns and community needs. i actually really like the design at 801 brannan, i can't believe what it is, but it looks different than what we have been seeing, it responds

to that rounded corner. it feels san franciscoan to me and i do like that. and i think that is my comments for now. >> thank you commissioner. >> gordon? >> i think that i share what some have shared the support for the project as we see today and the hope for the remaining very similar in the future and we ask that when this psych permit is issued that we are before the project you know gets its permit that we can have it back to us to see and we have done that in the past where the director shared with us the new designs and plans, and i think that it is innovative and the land dedication and the on site affordable and having a former board member and aware of the challenges that that organization has faced with the brick and mortar space and hope that it be a model.

some of those merchants could actually live in that area. i am familiar with the concourse and i am doing a large gala, i was sad when we picked the space we didn't know what it was going to be demolished and i understand the point to that. not to say that we would not have used the concourse, but that could be a place that we could use it in the future, it is unfortunate that was a place to know if they were selecting that site this year or last year and this could be the final year and it is regrettable. it is a very large, kind of warehouse spait and it is not worth preserving but it is one of those spaces of the type and size in the city. but it is primarily used for a lot of big events because there are not a lot of big spaces for those sort of events.

it is regrettable and it is not this project sponsor's fault for the concourse not letting people snow but what is regrettable. i am in support of property ject as well. i don't know if where you are in your talks are being bought out i actually got a text while you guys were asking me questions. we are going to build it as we designed it. >> great. >> so everybody can. >> so they are watching and they are paying attention. that is good. i mean for the future reference, and i don't know how they have in the pipeline in the immediate future, but if i were the buyers i would show up to talk about the plans because i think that it would help a lot of things >> commissioners. >> oh, i would say hi to the

new owners there. >> any way, i guess that it is the sentiment of the commission that it is a good project. both of them and nobody has made a motion and i am going to go ahead and make a motion based on the comments so far. to approve the project with conditions. >> second. >> reference, thank you. >> and referencing both introduction paragraphs, and outlined in bold referencing the various conditions and exemptions and also that we have found the findings and the mid gaysing reports relating to the california environmental act. >> commissioner, and the project sponsor, i think that this is mentioned in the report, but although, many of the units are planned for initially for rental, everything is condo mapped and

built to the standards that would allow it to be a condo because i think that these have to be built to different standards if i am not mistaken. >> thank you. >> on that motion, commissioners to approve projects 801 brannan. and adams. >> moore, aye. >> sugaya. >> wu. >> aye. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> it passes 6 to 0. >> commissioners. >> do you want to take a very short break? >> yeah. >> we are going to commissioners are going to take a break and we will come back at 3:15, thank you.