it's good to have some response to the various questions, and thirdly i think starting it is fine. i would imagine that the supervisor is not going to move forward until he gets input from the planning commission, so i don't have a fear of extending it out in the first place. >> commissioner with you. >> i am also supportive of the continuance to the 29th. i am open to the 29th then and continuing it further but agree we should start the conversation. i wanted to echo commissioner hillis' request for examples. i think that would help and something we have already seen and how it would be different under the new legislation or something we anticipate coming in the future. >> commissioner moore. >> i would be happy to talk to ms. rogers about typos,

uncertainty about use of word, vagueness in order for that to disappear prior to this group hearing it on the 29th because i do not think this document is clear because of those things i'm observing. >> okay. any additional comments? commissioners there say motion and a second to continue items as proposed, specifically item one to december 13, item six to december 6, and item 11 to november 29. commissioner tone. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> no. >> commissioner avery with commissioner with you. >> commissioner. >> aye.

>> that passes. all things under the consent calendar are routine by the commission and will be acted upon one roll call vote by the commission. there is no discussion unless the staff or public requests and in that case will be removed from the consent calendar and considered at a future hearing. case dolores terrace and request for condominium conversion. case 343 frederick street and request for condominium conversion. 1830 taraval street and request for continued authorization and 2001 pol ecstreet request for conditional use authorization. item six was

continued to december 6. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the items on the consent calendar? seeing none commissioner antonini. >> move to approve the consent items before us which are items two, three, four, and five. >> second. >> on that motion commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner with you wu. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. before you is questions and matters and item seven commission comments. >> commissioner borden. >> hi. i spoke about this with ms. rogers and with the ceqa legislation and i was thinking

in term was legislation we had with the awnings and stuff that supervisor chu has put forth and i thought it would be great in policy things that are changing the policy code or ceqa that affect this commission could we could have informational hearings early on in the process and not action items and understand the issues because i feel like a lot of times for legislation people get a packet. you don't really understand. sometimes it's not until we have the hearing where it's illuminating what the legislation is saying and various scenarios apply and i think it's useful to have a hearing early on in the process to do that and have a secondary hearing at the end of the window and vote on the legislation and i think we could figure out in between if there needs to be additional workshops or stakeholders groups need to be outreached to. a lot of people feel -- the planning commission

should be the ones to vet legislation with the planning code and ceqa -- even though administrative code falls into that area so that seems to make a lot of sense to include. the other thing and a thought i had about the housing dash forward and i will bring it up later when talking about the efficiency dwelling units but one of the things i thought would be useful when talking about housing or building market rate versus affordable, et cetera it would be interesting to have actual snapshot of cost per square foot in a particular neighborhood. i don't think in the abstract that the project tells you about who can afford to live in that project so having dashboard show what the median home price is in a particular neighborhood or smaller real estate track around that project and then the anticipated cost per square foot for that project then you could

better access whether or not the market -- we had the conversation whether the market fulfills any income of middle income housing we would have that. i think the general report doesn't get to the heart of what we're trying to solve so a better way of incorporating, looking at price per square foot in a given neighborhood and compare to projects economic online to the extent that we can would be useful information. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i would agree 100% with the request from commissioner borden because categorize things as market rate or affordable and we had instances a couple years ago where many of the market rate units were sold for less than have been the inclusionary amount that would have been charged under the ordinance, so it's important to really see real case situations and understand what you're really

talking about in terms of the costs. a couple of other items in terms of the commission's secretary subcommittee search i am still waiting for a reply from hr in regards to the classification issue, and i am hopeful i will hear something on that issue within the next few days and i will follow up with that and see where we are. secondly i would strongly urge everyone who has not seen the movie "lincoln" to go see it. it's excellent. unlike many movies today there is dialogue and it's thought provoking and the period of time it deals with is one of the important, not just for the country but the state and city during this time period and i encourage you to read the book "team of rivals" and the book upon which the movie was based and it gives you more perspective on who the different public officials are who are characterized in the

movie many of whom were rivals of lincolns for the republican nomination in 1860 and became part of the his cabinet and the battle for the 13th amendment so the two are interesting but the movie is very good. >> thank you. i am said "professor" that that historical -- commissioner moore. >> bright news. the embarcadero, the former home of local 3879 international long shor men's association has bought the building to locate the commonwealth club in that facility which is a great idea. i am very excited about it. the commonwealth club -- it used to on rand mc naly and market and second and now they're moving if everything goes well into this location which i think this is

absolutely wonderful way of bringing well known institutional use on to the waterfront. >> commissioners, that is director's report item eight director's announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners. i just wanted to -- there had been some requests to talk about the schedule for the proposed arena project on piers 30 and 32. i wanted to report to you about dates. after discussion with president fong and commissioner wu we agreed to have informational hearing in january when we have some better answers to questions at that point, so we will schedule that on your calendar to have an informational hearing in january, but just to give you some other dates that are currently on the schedule. as you know the board is currently considering the fiscal feasibility analysis for the

project. that allows us to continue -- that allows us to start working on the eir. we are anticipating that the draftee eir is published in may. your hearing on it would probably happen in june, and the schedule calls for a completion of the eir and consider the certification by the end of next year, so we are about a year away from completing the eir work on that project, and we will have the informational hearing scheduled on your calendar for january. secondly i just wanted to let you know i will be out of the office for two weeks starting thanksgiving. i will miss the meeting on november 29 and back for the meeting of december 6 and bill will be in charge of the department in my absence. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. >> item nine and review of events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals

and historic preservation commission. >> anne marie rogers from the planning staff. this week there was no hearing or full board but the zoning administrator did give me a report from the board of appeals i would like to share with you. there was one hearing last night they wanted you to know about. it regards the appeal for a restroom renovation and pass in gencanyon park and the paltant stated they didn't have concerns about the restroom but concerned about the removal of the trees and the ceqa was inadequate. the board of appeals noticed it related to the restroom and the only under under their purview and any concerns about ceqa determinations are for the board of supervisors and issue the permit and deny the appeal so that concludes the report for this week. >> thank you. >> commissioners that will

place you item 10340 fremont street. informational item. >> good afternoon. cory teague for staff. the planning commission first approved this in january, 2006 for several projects proposed under the rincon plan and one building height of four hadn't feet and 332 dwelling units and off space parking spaces and no commercial on the ground floor. the planning commission will consider a request for extension later in the calendar but the presentation today is intended to update the commission on the current design for the project and improvements to the exterior of the project. it includes slight increase of units to 338. a decrease in parking spaces to 269 with the majority of those

in stackers. a minor alteration at the rear of the podium building and continue to have nor commercial space within the building. the project sponsor will present the changes in detail and available for questions or comments. i will turn it over to them. thanks. >> good afternoon president fong. good afternoon planning commissioners. i am edward mercy and here representing jackson pacific. my company and art stone who collectively are and continue to be the original project sponsor developer for 340 fremont street. as mr. teague mentioned we are supporting now an informational presentation of the new design for 340 fremont street. our goals and reasons for electing to redesign a fully approved, fully compliant residential

tower were three. the first one was an esthetic visual exterior enhancement or upgrade for the absence of doubt this is not the vex exercise to the contrary. it's attempt to bring a building that we thought was good to very good in terms of architectural design. the second reason since seven years passed since our original design we under took a significant effort in the under the hood areas of the building, primarily redesigning the structural system to be compliant with a more reason structural high rise code and practice and the third is redesigning each 348

residential units. just a small note on architecture. we conducted a national search for our architectural firm. we have a strong hire local bias but we have a strong need and desire to get the highest level of expertise available in esthetic design, in technical expertise and residential planning and the result of the search was a really good local firm who maybe known to you called handel architects. we have been working with them for a year. we are thrilled with the team work and the work that they have done and really pleased to be presenting the new design to you today by handel architects and with they would like to introduce glenda scal vo and one of the design principals and will walk you through the design and we are available for questions or comments you may

have. >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners. thank you for having us here. we're very excited about -- >> excuse me. can you state your name for the record. >> glen scaff voa and partners in handel architects here in san francisco. we are very excited of being part of this project as mr. mercy pointed out. the challenge for us was to really get this building back up to a standard of 2010 structurally, esthetically and from a unit standpoint so this is going to be a short presentation on some of the changes that we have made. as you know the project sits on fremont street between folsom and harrison and midblock in the rincon hills district. this gives you indication of the parcel of land here. you can't

see the chart but i think you have some handouts there. as mr. mercy pointed out we reduced the parking but we have below grade parking so nothing is visible from the street and the building is broken down into three components and the below grade and the building and the tower itself and at 400 feet. one of the other significant changes and adjustments that we made of course the client pointed out the structural system. as you can see from the drawings one shows the old system which was small and the new system on the right-hand side which has an enlarged. that is due to the 2010 code so the building has met that requirement. we also made adjustments on the ground floor level to improve the townhouses that face on to parklet as well

as the lobby and leasing office to activate the store front. this is a bigger picture of that indicating the three tone components. the blue being the townhouses? a. the light yellow the lobby and back of house for the residents and then the bright yellow being the leasing office will eventually be more lobby space. the nice thing about this project because the terraces up we have the ability to have three different areas for out door space. we have out door space on the second floor, on the fifth floor as well as the ninth floor so the developer really offered to give the residents three amazing out door spaces, and the one on the ninth floor is spectacular and 85 feet over looking the city so it's a very enjoyable space. on the left-hand side is the original design that was done in 2006,

and probably design closer to 2004 and approved in 2006. we have taken that design and we have basically kept the massing the same but improved on the material. we are still using the materials that were suggested earlier on pre-cast and glass but we moved the combination around a little to make it more contemporary in its feeling. we focused a lot on the base of the building. as you can see on the left-hand side of the original the base design was very institutional in nature, a little heavy. we have heightened it quite a bit and as can you see one of the things that we try to do is break the base down so it had more of a pedestrian feel to it and the scale broke down and creating

the windows and feelings at the base of the building, so that is one of the biggest changes overall to the project is how the base really meets the street and improveos the pedestrian sequence along fremont street. here's another view at that base. and the lobby is dead center and then as you can see it's a very active store front that we have created there, and this is a view if you were pretty much at rincon one looking back towards the city, towards -- there's the financial district. again the combination of pre-cast and glass combined together and similar to the old scheme but more contemporary interpretation so that is essentially the design changes that we have made. if you have any questions i am happy to answer those. thank you.

>> this is under the director's report. is there public comment on that? >> agendized item. there can be. >> all right. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners any questions? commissioner antonini. >> i had a couple questions for any of you. first of all i guess i noticed that you have increased the number of units within the allowable amount as we know, and decreased the parking, and recently we had a presentation by tishman a fire for 201 folsom and they went in the other direction making the units larger and smaller number of units because they found that 400 i think 400 -- 300 -- the first infinity tower his more

families with children and they felt the demand was there for the larger units, so this seems to be the ols in your case. maybe you can tell me the reason for smaller units and the two bedroom or larger is less than in our original entitlement. >> commissioner antonini i can address two of the questions of the ones that you presented. i cannot address the tishman spire strategy in changing or creating their program. art stone is a rental developer, owner-operator, and the intention here -- one of the intentions in redesigning the project was to design a rental high rise. we think we've got it right. everybody has to make a subjective business judgment

call in terms of the right balance and how many square feet for a studio, one bedroom, two bedroom is and is it 1100 feet or 1350 square feet? we have made a decision guided by the limits imposed by the eir and the original approvals to go to the higher unit end of unit count and adjust the size slightly lower. we still have met the 40% two and three bedroom threshold. that's a factual statement and exactly where we were and recall us having been in 2005. in terms of -- the best way i can respond to the preponderance or not of families living in downtown hi

rises is probably one hawthorn which is a project that my company developed and has 165 residential units and it's anecdotal information and not just speak for example art stone and i have provided to my partners. we have approximately five families -- i think the definition of families parents with children living in the 165 unit high rise building. 10 units remain unsold but it can't skew the mix too much and the preponderance of the units are primary residents. they're not investor units. i don't know if i can shed anymore light on the question. >>i think you answered it and certainly sounds based on your

experiences with hawthorn this is the best you feel that would work best for you and i am certainly supportive, and obviously these units are condo mapped so in the future they had to be sold they could be sold, and i really complement you also on the design -- redesign with an outstanding architectural firm and improvement on the original design and much richer. i did have one question -- maybe it's more for the architecture tekt. you can probably answer. one of the renders look like a masonry finishing on the units and looks richer and some look more pale looking and i'm not sure what the pre-cast material is going to be or appear on that lower frontage that goes up about six floors i believe. i'm not sure of the floors it goes up. >> i think that is primarily a question that we should ask

glen scal vo to answer and we have been sensitive to the way it can be successful and as a wall material can be unsuccessful and the elements that we have tried to integrate into those portions of the building have to do with color, with add mixture, by creating release in the depth of the pre-cast panels and variety of finishes in terms of smooth and rough finish and a big palet that changes the way light is perceived and the surface of the building is perceived so i think we have a very skillful architect and tried to maximize the visual impact of that material. >> yeah. it looks like it's going to be -- just for my personal preference if it's a

little bit darker it's richer on that part about the third level up to the six level. maybe he can -- >>i am getting outside of my licensing permissions. >> so basically the way that we have done it at the base of the building we have stone and glass. as you go up to the second three i will the seventh floor it's a combination of metal, panel and glass and from there up we do is where we introduce the pre-cast because the pre-cast is somewhat of a -- not that -- a little bit more of a raw material we like to keep it high up on the building, so it's really perceived more as a richer material. we have done -- one of the things we're doing with the pre-cast is giving it a lot of angularity so it casts interesting shadows along the facade of the building. one of

the things we have done successful on some of the other buildings is create exterior walls that have more kinetic feel to them so when the light moves around them they change and that's what we would like to do with this building. i hope that answers it is question. >> it does and i think the texture i see in the drawings adds to the richness and i was expressinglet opinion of the midlevel and somewhat darker color to the metal exterior and any pattern that you could put in and break up the light reflection it will be upon even richer and the direction you're moving in. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> this is an informational presentation only. the one thing i wanted to say to the commission i am glad to see a tower redesign which is more residential in expression. it kind of lifted out of an area where we see more and more

glass towers and for traditional purposes they're commercial and this looks residential and i welcome the redesign and the design meets that expectation and the code adjustments with the elevators as described so thank you. >> commissioners, that concludes the informational item. we can move on to the general public comment. not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time the members of the public may address the items interest to the public except for agenda items and your opportunity will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i have no speaker cards. >> general public comment. >> my name is genie quack and live in the university terrace neighborhood and i hope i don't