of the definition of the 65 portion is ambiguous so within the 4 hundred foot twenty-four hour that's the scheme we proposed it is for the housing to the full potential as time passed and we actually saw the height map as deposited unbiggest is the height was list we saw it was restricted than previously shown so on the right-hand side this slide you see the building that emerges when you apply the tower separation the or the adapted height length this was last time this starts with the building that's looking for the feet that kicks off a discussion with the planning department what was reasonable for the site we

developed multiple opens opposite what is the most reasonable to round about 565 feet increasing the feet from the distance from the freeway at harrison and again here on the option c, d, and e that is on the screen you'll see the ideas we're very good options that were presented to the planning department and following that study we established a health and bulk for the project that was arbitrarily to all study we looked at saw the same height and unbelievable where we were placing it if we observed the tower separation we saw the mass towards the freeway that starts to t as. >> come over the bay bridge

keep the magazine away from the freeway as much as possible this is was the planning department scheme we were fast forwarding to march of 2014 before i the process of the design the massing has emerged in a following study we look at the planning department request the impact of the skyline the who views from the bay bridge and the building only comes into view as you get past rincon hill it has much more in common with the other buildings in the adjacent neighborhood we were placed prior to the rincon hill development and the rincon hill plan so in terms of the earth treatments itself we have 3 things we're primarily

responding to the towers around us and the second the adjacent neighborhood we have more of on industrial feel and low rise feel to south beach so more industrial materials and masonry the multi industrial fashion and thirdly we thought was for the juncture while challenging acute iron corners and architecture opportunity that didn't come along we felt when a was important to exploit and growing improper you implore the idea that is the most solid mass dealing with the noise and pollution from the off-ramp and once you clear that podium you have a more mass that looks at

over the freeway and facing harrison street and do you only a more portion which relates back to rincon hill and the downtown in general so future investigations of those materials led us to a conclusion that was presented to the planning department responded positively to the solid podium piece on the building and explore more elevation we integrated the language we relied the language to the slope on harrison street and started to look at the building as a low masonry building rather than the glassy turns over of rincon hill this is how the masonry have you lived here is a color angle how we're dealing with the mass and creating a visual interest on

this point of the building. >> and taking that treatment to the odds is the complete 360 in response to the comments from the planning department and you guys a further examine that was a concern was broad master buildings as it faces harrison this is in more keeping with the slender towers of rincon hill street and finally the last concern was one of the darkness of the masonry employed we go look at the materials and agreed by rugs it 60 percent vitamin we were having something livelyer

and more forgiving one of the positive projects from the improvements to harrison street all the way that you to first street you see the existing building in the upper right hand corner and the live on the street and retail space that brings activity to that block of the neighborhood that is needed last couple of slides i've prepared and after our last preparation presentation there to further clarify the challenges of the site let me show you the challenges of building up to 4 housing unit feats on the left of left the masses is presented and the second slide here you'll see the scheme is option c and d the

reduction of mass of the building plausible to a 3 hundred foot tower we'll be building the same number of units with slightly - option e is creating a limited floor plan in terms of size with circulation and structure this didn't - >> so the last slide is a response to more housing with the confines of the environmental studies the traffic studies was hundred plus units had is what happens when you build did maximum amount of housing and 3 stories to it or the reduced block having two

stories. >> thank you. we'll take public comment and i'm sure we'll be asking project sponsor to come up robert. >> good afternoon robert i'm the director of service development i want to confirm the comments by highness we had additional conversations that were productive to look at the flow off-ramp will work with this property design so i'm cautiously optimistic with the timeframe we have in front of us in terms of the planning commission approving this project some of the next steps we'll binge on the engineering they did primarily studies on

this c0 traffic flow lands in san francisco we'll bring them up for a technology analysis and have the plans from the developer to compare with our conceptual plans were and then we'll go back and meet with hines and hopefully we'll have some progress to present in july and possible some sort of an agreement with the developer and the transit finally i want to talk about the significance of the c0 traffic planning not just a benefit it has a strong regional benefit you know bart trains are over crowd and the transbay corridor is reaching maximum capacity for our ability to have a chronically traffic lane to get more buses between san francisco it creates more liability for bus riders and creates more

capacity and is more affordable for us to have our operations we really looking forward to work w working with the develop seeing this concept is included thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> seeing none. >> director ram. >> commissioners i just wanted to i think the point to have a dialog about the design this come up about the - why we didn't ask them to go honoree higher i think commissioner moore said that perhaps better than i do it struck us given the existence of the roeven plan to have a reasonable separation of towers a building of this height didn't seem to have the same impact visibly on the

relationship to the other two hours and, in fact it kind of a transition between rincon hill to stepping up from the neighborhood and in many ways providing a tower to rincon hill they lack so it is it felt more comfortable from an urban design to have a building of this height as opposed to another tower that is crammed in that's the reason we worked with this go developer it is exactly 240 or 60 i'm not sure there is a magic number but it feels comfortably comfortable to us. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> the definition of a tower is fairly low hundred 60?

yeah. i think we appoint go ahead >> the tower separation is hundred and 10 feet okay. okay we talked about i think that was 375 fremont it is next to or fairly close to 399 fraiment a tall building topped off now and the other building in question is fairly short maybe hundred and 50 feet but at all enough to be defined as a tower so flo therefore is subject to tower separation and third project approved right next to the other one a those all came into play those are good points various towers that are much more beginning beginning and have a greater

impact that tends to blend in more given the choices that were presented this so you would the best one a shorter building, that has good separation from the bridges it is slightly closer to the existing towers i guess 1 across the street on harrison that will has recently been completed it is well designed i like the punch window masonry effect people say all we see is glass towers that is not a feeling of just glass i'm talk about the tuning down the colors making it 60 percent of what it was before you want to make sure there's a contrast between the two one the best

buildings that's been built on 560 mission j.p. morgan chase and lots of glass the green independence the building and i think what you're doing it fin make sure there's a enough difference for the towers that are glassy. >> commissioner richards. >> i really appreciate this effort i was probably one of the ones it sat up here and said we're changing zoning and we're accommodating the zoning it i saw the thought process and the dialog that went back and forth as a layman i'm understanding the process which was helpful i want to say thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the historic

overview i'm disturbed about the length of the building with the freeway not just the geometry of the walls but the arc of the road that determines how long your embodied embodied to the wall not the length of the give mey but thought curve if we curve that the exposure is longer than than what spice up me the department didn't take a stronger entrance on the alternative fee on page 42 that basically brings on a point of the building to the freeway which would have been my preferred option to put it more into the grow. y of the grid

wouldn't have - would have given more exposure to the building rather than having it on the facade parallel to the building that will make a slightly taller building to be blunt you don't know i don't believe that the number of reluctance inherent in the zoning but a requirement in which to create the buildings as to whether or not like sea and sky about create hundred and 81 units rather than the scheme our proposing no promise what the yield will be i'm going to be simple i believe that item the tower scheme would have been a better building i'm still not happy with the treatment of the harrison street facade

i think as a building comes to the corner the pedestrian friendly nature of the facade needs to be carried further to the west this is going downhill to the corner of first and harrison only - rather than starting i don't have an exact dimension further up the hill particular the ground floor you'll bring the 10 or 15 stretched but up to the level it makes the building unfriendly as you're coming from the corner up the hill i'm personally not convinced and this commission is not an earthquake review committee we're not that the treatment of your brick facade has captured all the elements that i believe are inherent in brick i'm saying that the

percentage of close to open elements is disprompt to me i own you'll continue to work on that perhaps breaking down the glass but politically a screen rather than working with the proposition all attitude towards open and closed facade elements. >> i hope i'm expressing myself clearly here. >> the solid elements of the brick facade elements are only i - like a geometry or pharmacist on the facade and it is not quite worked out enough for the solid opening i'm i'd like to see a treatment from west and south facing the facades around the building to see how the buildings look on

its different sides and the works we're having a residential building here and i think i'm going to sit in contemporary investigations than trying to deal too much with the transformation of industrial we're past that point in this area rincon hill is not a residential neighborhood i appreciate a residential expression to be clear so we're move forward into the future i like our discussion on the flatiron, however the chicago examples don't make it in san francisco thank you. >> director ram. >> commissioners, i wanted to clarify a couple of your comments if i may looking at the alternatives on page 42 i think the width of the tower not the base you're concerned about when

you come across the freeway reporter the upper portion of the building that you're having a concern about. >> i like the tower orientation as being scooted and the facade of the tower only meeting the freeway as at the point rather than a flashlight facades 24 feet with a hundred and 81 unite that diminishes the problematic nature of the facades being parallel to the freeway it puts it also when you look at the overhead composition of discount u do you want not just soldier buildings that means towers lining up but a pattern that gives more light and air between towers that's why i picked that example okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini.

>> yeah. i agree with commissioner moore on the masonry it z does look like a facade at that point as so he happened to be part of building if you use that i strongly support and do a larger surface you only have a few that hearten to the masonry i like the punched windows as i said it is nice to have buildings that are not the same they get repetitious this heart attacks to the industrial buildings and breaks it from everything else on the hill our doing a lot of nice things as far as the building are paralleling to the freeway as long as separation is

an adequate one it seems to be as the dimensions i'm not concerned it is only a point contract or a leaner contact the separation is a separation those units are going to be know that's what they're getting that end up being. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a question upcoming when looking at the alternatives some of the similar responses alternative g and e not necessarily it seems less bulky they're less bulky but you had notations about why it didn't work in into the cases g it gave us a taller less buck i didn't building and e the neighborhood support wasn't there what was the issue with the neighborhood support and maybe i

mean it seems like e would be more efficient from a vertical complication than g perhaps walk through gs and e's why they don't compare well, to c and starting at e really as the total of the building and the more unit it has the same number of units but requires an elevator and without an elevator also the bulk restrictions lowers the- or efficiency a ratio of the registered e rental area to the non rental area that all points to the feasibility of the building as a project when you go above 80 percent of the tower you'll have to apply the

techniques to the project the minute you donna go below 80 percent that's a red flag we don't develop which of those in terms of the height and the neighborhood support it's not we don't have to get neighborhood support going back into the processes of showing something to the neighborhood group that was an additional 5 stories fall and a at all there is a lot of sensitivity not to say we can't find a better solution but going back to the neighborhood and spending 5 years it is difficult we don't have this support not to say we couldn't get it. >> in terms of the d that efficiency starts to improve you

get floor area based on the size the plates you also only adding one floor not an elevator you risk circulation is it so a little bit better but the downside losing the building to the acute corner giving the building the geometry gives the building something difficult that the buildings don't get it only on market street. >> okay. i get i understand thank you for your presentation i mean i see why we ended up - i know think we prefer a less unbelievable i didn't building and understand the constraint. >> how you ended up- i'm indifferent to a g the flatiron effect e logan's looks like

you've locked off at the level but i mean, i kind of like commissioner moore said we're not an architecture review body and appreciate in kind of presentation. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> the comment i made comes from the greatest comfort to our feeling of buildings being too close to the freeway in in response to commissioner hillis and when the rincon hill was talked about there was no buildings on previously low rise industrial size how to translate into believes that are indeed efficient and feasible on site close to the freeway having said that and you seem to have the answers to the scheme why yours

with the best won those buildings are too close and how to diminish that but that has to be lights balanced with the orientation and minimizing those i maintain that is a stronger public concern and remind you with commissioner lee that said he was on the commission when the first project was approved i think i remember he said if i say this i would never have ever approved that. >> i agree with the sentiment option g or e giving a sense of not having facade along the freeway i'm looking at our

flatiron example there is something about this building it is more angle last year at the tip whatever those are retained an edge than the other works; right? there is on a angle last year point i don't know if it is worst achieving the flatiron and giving up the facade along the freeway at the end of the day i'm a believer none of us are experiencing buildings from the outside i do agree that more focus on the pedestrian experience really is sort of what the best for the public commissioners just a point of clarification on commissioner moore's comments on the street footage commissioner moore what you clarify about your

discussion on the access to the street. >> i think the pedestrian friendliness needs to start at the corner not up the hill until you are at least 60 or 80 feet into the building facade something from an industrial point that needs to make the building invite and open with the creditor flow lane being an issue and constraint but the openness of the building rather than the closed unpedestrian corner we're putting that requirement open emily murase building i don't want to see that here. >> i want to give the gentleman a chance you're walking up to the podium to respond. >> first of all, a that have

the information the wage is facing the mainline line freeway it is 97 feet away it is substantially away i wanted to understand the freeway second degree minded not the - >> you're saying it's the freeway. >> process wise if the commission would like us to exposure g or f the one constraint what was initiated a 2 hundred height limit i recommend the commission what it does consider the ethics commission and look at a 2 hundred and 50 height limit