that, we can afford to item number 12, 201 folsom st., also known as 314 main street. >> good afternoon. this is an informational presentation for the revised design street whi sister project of theç affinit it received an extension from the commission until september of this year. the original approvalç recognized the ability of thisok to change before construction and recommend approval of design t(after that time. the original design included multiple levels of parking to

accommodate to hundred 72 parking places for the post office. those spaces are no longer included. as proposed, the design is within the threshold of the approval and i will let the architect outline the changes. çspecifically, the number of units decreased and the number of parking spaces decrease from 1000 -- the rate of 121 units remain. w3the amount of residential open space increased significantly as well. that additional project review and design review -- significant items that a review would include ground level townhome design, streetscape improvements

and passageway design. at this point, i will turn it over to project sponsor for their presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. weç are front of you, the revised design for 201 in conformance with the original approvals. i will turn it over to bernardo. >> a good afternoon. i would like to take you through the plans and elevations. the volumetric presentation. in the process of doing that, i'm going to showç you the differences that were just point

out and how they affect the design in a positive way. i wouldçó like to start with the site and you will know where the infinity is located. this was intended to be a sister çproject to the infinity and it remains as such. it is not identical. t is a companion project in the way buildings are cited, but there are differences in terms of the architectural expression in the form of the building. even though we do try to keep it as originally intended,ç it -- you can see where the buildings occur. you can see the infinity, you

can see the two proposed towers and you see how they rotate about each other. they are notñr symmetrical orient in the upper floors into the building and views of the bay. they are staggered diagonally by virtueç of the curvature, they maintain the maximum possible distance between towers and give an appearance of beingç freestanding and separated. you can see them here as well with respect to the anthony towers. you can see what begins as a more squareç building and endig into elliptical shapes rotating in different directions and in giving directionality to the two buildings.

we have put the proposed projects in a transmitting it neighborhood so you can see how the neighborhood is shaping around the trans bay terminal. you can see where the project was and where it is today. the towers remain in the same location in the envelope described in the original approval. there are two podium buildings which in the original design, they were not exactly pulliam buildings because it was a six level brushed -- it wasç a six- level garage. right now, we have a podium at

elevation closer to the ground and the buildings on either side are overlooking the green spaces that occur in between. it's an importantjutá because the lowering introduce it -- reduces the number of parking spaces and the whole expression of the garage that was rather balky -- rather bulky. you can see the podiums and the original design to some extent -- theç site plan does not totally reflect the fact the green space was on level 7 instead of happening much closer to the ground. q articulate a between each other.

even then, the roof of those podiums, we also have green spaces that areç accessible by the elevators and stairs that reach them so that in fact all of the low buildings, whether it's the 20-foot high podium or the actual presidential podium, you will see aç green roof that is alive has and instead of looking at what would have been a plane roof, you can see the envelopes and we have moved away from the organization which you can see has opened up the distances and the profile of the building against the sky. we taper significantly more and half for tapirs that narrow down toward the sky and separate them in a much stronger waves and as originally approved.

you can see how they are reducing quite a bit as we move up throughç the top floors. here is the ground floor and the air original intent of the approval is to line the street edges with live activity with the townhouses or retail or public functions. çthe previousç ground floor ws greatly invaded by the access ramps and parking garage areas. çççyou can see activity in te fitness center most of the time instead of temporarily. we still have some townhouses but the retail is much more

viableç. with proper servicing and that, replacing a significantly the ground floor. the lobby's remain where they were and most importantly, if you look at this diagram, our access points remain identical to the parking aunt to the loading. çthat is simply a balancing, bt where the improvement really occurs this to the right where you can see the previous case was a lowering area for the previous building and the sponsor has been in discussions with that neighbor so that nowxd the entire space will be a

freeway that will connect the streets and they occupy 40 feet and we have an additional 50 feet that had originally been dedicated in the original approval that will be incorporated into one consolidated landscape plan between the two which will result in a very broad, green space between the two buildings. the beijing area next to the trees is the portion our sponsor controls. hopefully that will be integrated into one single public space. this is the section before and after. it speaks for itself. you can see the magnitude of the previous podium and now it is for buildings in a block like a real city. the towers feel more slender because they are articulated from the podium buildings and

come freely to the ground and don't feel as chunky and steady as they were when they rose from the podium. these are some of the important aspects of the statistics that have changed on this project. we have gone fromç 725 units to 671. how is it we change and still have the same area in the project? how can we reduce 54 units? the composition breakdown of unit times have changed significantly. we have reduced the number of çóstudios and one bedrooms -- there's a significant reduction and we have increased the family units. it is essentially changing the demographics of the building to a more family-oriented building,

encouraging families to move into san francisco. there were no three-bedroom apartments before and now there are more. but that still result in a reduction because there were a originally so many studios and we went from 161 to 12. the commercial space is practically the same because we have incorporated some of the public functions of the building to the ground floor. the podium reduction reduces the parking at significantly. also important in this is the fact that we have a significant increase in resident open spaces. the green space has increased by 68% as a :

changes. lastly, i show you the building and how it tapers through a series of letters. eventually, the building transforms itñr self to this elliptical shape at the tip. pulling back to the final one, this ist( important because the mechanical equipment is integrated into the building. it is not an add-on to the building. also note what happens to the podium building. you can see -- you can see the podium and designed with a very

different vocabulary. çyou can see the balcony's and more solid expression until the building openst( up and forms a diagonal. the balcony's project so they allowed down the street toward downtown. you can see the arcade with its overhang and of theç retail space at 20 feet up where -- from which the residential building rises. you can seeñr the towers and the podium together. there is an actual air space betweenw3 the two of them that takes your eyes deep into the center of the block.

t(president miguel: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: iç think 's a very exciting story to listen to. given that was a special use district, it becomes a scary to lock in an old idea at a time when this area was completely undeveloped. today, everything has changed to new dynamics and a new value of this particular building and i am delighted to see it going as it does. i think the elliptical form of

the building and elliptical spaces this is all very exciting. >> i agree. i think it's a very, very good project and shows and evolution over eight years since the original entitlements and there has been criticism about projects not moving forward, but this is moving forward when the time is right and it is a reaction to what has been found with theç earlier in affinity project which i spoke about last week in regards to the project sponsor. the fact they have a very high percentage of people for whom it is a primary residence -- i

think there are a large percentage of these people are families with children. ççthe other thing i noticed ie electrical towers appear to be almost 90 degrees to each other and when you look at the direction they are going, and adds more to the tower separation and makes them distinct entities. the other part that was pointed out -- part of that was the post office facility being gone. i think it's really well done and i'm looking forward to it started as soon as possible and i think we are planning to have it go forward fairly quickly

now, so that is good. >> to follow-up on that last project, the performance time only extends through september of this year. does that mean we are expecting this to move forward before that time? >> we are moving forward and we need to finish this approval with the planning department and yourselves in order to have that commitment to move forward. it is our intent to do that and we hope to do it surely if we get past the deadline. we do want to move as quickly as we can on this project. we have seen the san francisco housing market began to recover for the first time which is a positive trend. >> thank you for the question i

asked a few weeks ago. i wanted to remind the commission that in this area, where we are seeing major adjustments to the city's silhouette, it is important to point to the slide he showed where the trans bay powers and the buildings were modeled. it shows a very good fit of these new forms. thank you. president miguel:ç i was also very pleased. that presentation put everything into context, which is something that doesn't always happen that this commission. i am obviously very pleased by the other commissioners. çit pushes the way we have been trying to push at this

commission for some time which means we were not that far off. the very fact that these last approvals -- getting the post office parking out of the way actually did happen. as much as we want it, no one was sure about that. >> i want to thank the project sponsors for working on this. we spent a fair amount of time working on the design, so thank you for working with us on that. this is an unusual entitlement. it was entitled several years ago but it gives me the authority to approve the final design. the commission is making recommendations to me.

i just want to remind you that this is an unusual approach and that's why this is an informational hearing today. commissioner antonini: i would be remiss in not thinking staff and the project sponsor. a number of commissioners have mentioned the packet that shows the design evolution from the phases. that's a very helpful as well as the context with what will be hopefully the appearance of the bill out area in the next few years. that makes it easy to see how it fits in. >> i would like to ask the director if you have the authority -- would youñr please carry our message that the adjoining boehner think about dedicating an open space easement to dedicate the blocks

and i think it will do a great deal of good to have the transition between the lower water front and the east powers off from it blocked open space. >> we would be happy to take that message. >> thank you. with that,ç we can move forwar also under the director's report, have the board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> planning department staff, i'm here to present the activities of the board of supervisors for planning and land use this week. at the land use committee, they heard ordinance's related to the chinatown transit station specialties district. this will allow the demolition of the two-story excuse building

in association with development plans for the future transit station. the buildings contain 18 residential units and eight ground-floor businesses. the commission recommended approval on january 26. the legislative sponsor stated there were some unanswered questions about replacement housing and ask the item be continued until february 13. at the full board on tuesday, the board heard ordinances' related to the glen park community plan. this is an effort for a planning çprocess approved on first rea this week, the legislative )áju wiener and supervisor olague thanked the

board and a voted unanimously to approve the ordinances. later in the hearing, thereççs an opinion for the wireless antenna at 401 14th ave. ççthe appellant at the board s the first slavic baptist church of san francisco. the concerns were about radiofrequency radiation, the siding on educational facility and a lack of independent analysis on capacity and coverage as provided by at&t. department staff it now requires independent analysis as part of the applications of metal. while we ask the project sponsor

to pursue the analysis, they were unable to do that and pursue the hearing. the department explained this location isç one location -- ad we were finally joined by the department of public health and describe to the publicç how the site would be safe according to science. two supervisors requested the process and the way we review çthese antennas be updated in e future. thecu was up held and supervisor març cast the dissenting vote. ççthere were three introductii

wanted to share with you this week. there was a resolution establishing the community advisory committee. this was an update that provides specificity about the various departments roles. an ordinance was introduced to amend the planning code to -- we will find out more about this in the coming months. lastly, i request for city agencies and stakeholders about the steps to pursue transit oriented development at the upper yard site at the balboa park area. that concludes my report for this week. commissioner sugaya: i am to

understand from your report on çglen park that none of the supervisor asked the planning department to go conduct a vote among the residents of the plant area? >> that is correct. president miguel: i just wanted to mention that i caught on replay your testimony on at&t at 14th avenue. it reminded me i might have been remiss in not commenting on the fact that this commission makes decisions and takesç notes and often those decisions are appealed either to the board of supervisors or to the board of appeals. we do not appear to defend ourselves. in effect, you are advocates at

those hearings and i have caught both of you on tv in -- i caught this one and i want to say you do an outstanding job. i'm personally very pleased to have you as our advocate in this case. i think in this one, you went far beyond the normal explanations and did it and education and job to the board of supervisors regarding cell phone and 10 of locations. you kept it synched and accurate. you dealt with the science so that it was understandable. that is very much appreciated. when it it leaves here, that is not always the end of it. we're very appreciative of how the department handles our work as it moves on. >> >> thank you very much.

commissioner sugaya: well, let me tell you my experience is having served on the board of appeals for four years. [laughter] i think planning staff and the building department staff and probably all of the step people representing the department -- at that time, we were hearing a taxi commission cases, which were always very informative and represented the department's well. >> is there a report for the board of appeals? >> no report. >>ñr no report from the historic preservation commission. they did not meet. that texas to general public comment. it has a duration of 15 minutes. members of the public may address you on items of interest in the public better under the