buildings in that area and other parts of the city present one of the largest opportunities for the city to reasonably densify, with acceptable dwelling units, acceptable standards for mixed use, including revitalizing the public realm, improving transportation, and helping us with a number of policy issues. this project bills on a number of issues. this should not have been on the consent calendar. it should have been discussed for us to reflect on what is missing. i would like to remind the commission of last week. we had two projects which stood in stark contrast to each other. they did not describe what the situation was. commissioner antonini got involved to help us understand

the issue of this project. this project fails to do this. this project does not address the real materiality and transformation of the area in a larger discussion. it just says we are doing good, converting industrial to housing, and adding affordable housing. but it suggests sub-standard dwelling units, which start at 200 square feet. that is not sufficient to suggest the standard, and once more toward met -- and points more toward making a quick buck. we can provide co-compliant buildings which provide the right exposure. 60% of the units do not have

proper exposure, but try to rely on an inner courtyard. we have seen in a number of examples in this area other architects have tried to use buildings in a manner that produced no were the buildings, including historic preservation buildings. would you mind not speaking? i am speaking. onward. we have really very good examples of buildings on similarly large lots, adaptive reuse buildings, which have done very well. however, they do not put a people factor in. i am going to use a word which was not used at all in your presentation. the architectural transformations of the building are basically non-recognizable.

the building, when it is finished, on the outside will not be much different than what it is now. it is basically a building with too many people in it, 20 pounds in a 5 pound bag. i am very upset the project was brought forward in the manner it is. it lacks the proper discussion and representation. thirdly, the recommendations by staff are contradictory on their own. they make a point and the recession. i am very unhappy with what is in front -- they make a point and they rescind. i am very unhappy with what is in front of us. commissioner antonini: i agree that projects like this probably should be on our regular contract -- regular calendar. i think this is a good project. however, it gives us the ability to look a bit and say is this the best use. should it have been larger units?

i am fine with it. i think it serves a purpose. should it be geared for ownership? is it realistic to expect that while you are only providing eight parking spaces of force 67 units, just because there are small -- eight parking spaces of 467 units, just because they are small -- i am in favor of this project, but i would like to see it affected a little more thoroughly-- vetted a little more thoroughly before the commission, and have a little more lead time to consider the whole thing, rather than it being on consent. vice president miguel: i am also in agreement that this should not have been on consent. to me, it is warehousing, just as much as size of units and that type of thing as the

comments we just had on another building. i do not believe that it is one of the intense -- intents to pull that area up from what it is now, that the greening of the exterior of the building does that. it maintains it just as it is. it's still reads like a warehouse to me. it does not read residential. it does not improve the neighborhood to the extent we are getting in the comments from the project sponsor. i have no problem with the limitations on parking, or any of that. i took a look at the plans and was thrown by the 250 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. we have run into this situation

all along. basically, you are looking at something like an sro here, as far as units are concerned. but the bathrooms are bought downhaul -- are not down the hall. i am not satisfied with this. i am certainly not satisfied with it being on consent. commissioner moore: i would like to further comment on the ground floor used being described as a commercial opportunity. i do not believe 210 square feet constitute a space for economic and commercial opportunity. that is basically not even a garage space. i think the reasoning with this project is very weak. i do believe the department needs to develop prototypes and guidelines. the project is asking for as many units to be determined for

compliance -- i cannot do that. that opens a pandora's box. 250 square feet -- >> [inaudible] >> 250 square feet is not the type of unit we should be bringing to the market. i believe, particularly when it comes to accommodating twitter people, they will want more than 250 square feet, unless they just want a bed to sleep in and a country home over the weekend. i am not prepared to do that. commissioner sugaya: excuse me. i am reluctant to impose what we think are our own concepts of square footage is and things on populations that think quite

differently than us. i do not think we have any idea what the young people that work at twitter and other places like that are seeking, or can even put up with. in my own office, we have leased space to a dotcom company. it is completely populated with people that are, i would say, under 25. they are perfectly content. they wear jeans. but i cannot figure out what they do on their computers. but it would seem to me that given certain articles i have seen in the paper, the mind set are not the same as ours. i am willing to maybe take a chance. i don't know.

if people want to continue it and have a better conversation about it, that is ok with me. but i think square footage -- there have been at least two or 3 youtube videos, one by an architect in hong kong uses movable walls in a space less than 200 square feet, another by a young guy in york who lives in 67 square feet. it is astounding, but he is able to do it. i am not saying that is the ideal thing and we should be promoting it, but there are creative ways people are using smaller spaces. there is even a proposal in japantown to may be opened up a love hotel. i put you on morning for that one, director. -- i put you on warning for that

one, director. i do not know what a continuance will get us. commissioner antonini: mr. silberman, do you want to comment? >> thank you for allowing me to comment. i appreciate commissioner subaya' -- sugaya's comments on different populations being comfortable with different sizes of housing. the problem in san francisco for the last 30 years has been affordable housing. it is an issue that constantly is addressed in public forums and so forth, and in the mayor's office, with the board of supervisors. everybody is looking for more affordable housing. there are two factors that go into creating affordable housing. one is the size of the unit.

two is the location. this is a good location for affordable housing, because it has been so undeveloped. san francisco is a big city with a lot of people, different kinds of people with different needs. if there are young people looking for affordable housing who are comfortable in 250 square feet, there should be housing provided for them. we should provide a broad spectrum of housing from large to small, to provide a broader price range. if you really want to provide affordable housing, something has to give. one of the things that has to give is the size. you cannot provide 1000 square feet at an affordable price. i think if we want to take a serious stab at addressing the affordable housing problem, let us not jump to the conclusion that a 24 or 25-year-old is not

going to be willing to live in a 250 sq. ft. unit. many would appreciate this opportunity, rather than having to commute into twitter or any other business from outside the city or the east bay. this is a huge market, here. a lot of people want to live in the city. vice president miguel: i appreciate your remarks. i am going to propose a continuance for three weeks or month, whatever time, but not so much for a redesign or reduction of units. but i think there were concerns with the rendering of what the exterior modifications are going to be to make the building appear a little bit more residential in nature. i am not saying it has to be drastic. but i did not really see

anything in what i saw that indicated any changes that were going to be made, or how those were going to be made. that would be what i would move, if we could come up with a date. >> first of all, i appreciate your comments. when we get them, it helps us -- drake gardiner, project coordinator. i have been here so many times, i thought you might know me. it is basically a warehouse. it has steel windows and an old concrete facade. it has been painted. we are changing out all the windows. we are refinishing the facade. we're putting awnings over all the windows. we are painting it. a color, hopefully, something bright.

based on what has been approved as a new residential construction, this is going to meet the standards. this is a totally modern look, done within the context of the existing building. we're doing it in an economical way. i can guarantee you that when it is done you will notice that building on the block. it is similar to what some other people are doing with commercial facades on the same block. as far as a rendering those, that is no problem. we can do a rendering and make that a lot more understandable. a three week -- although we do not want a continuance, and would like it settled today if possible -- if there is still a chance that could happen, we would like that to move forward. having said that, we can make the design a lot clearer,

through renderings and other ways, material samples, if that is your request. vice president miguel: thank you. that would be a motion, if there is a second, for a continuance to three weeks. >> the next hearing is october 20. vice president miguel: that would probably be it, if the commission feels so inclined. commissioner antonini: october 22, cpmc is coming up. >> we could get the rendering in a week. >> we would need to get something to the commission before, in their pocket. -- packet. commissioner moore: the

discussion we are having here is not about whether or not young people like smaller or larger unit sizes. if the city moves into reconsidering unit sizes based on densifying the city and encouraging creative design of smaller units, a reconsideration of how we use space -- america has a larger square foot per person in the world. that would be wonderful. i think the city is well poised to do that. i have a hard time. this project is so aggressive that it would ask for 70% of all units to basically be noncompliant to code. the sun, like, and their exposure, even with smaller units -- the sun, like to --

sun, light, and air exposure still have to be considered with smaller units, or we're moving to the industrial age. we have spoken to sponsors of projects that have done that. this project falls short of doing it. 70% of the units are asking to be noncompliant. i am not able to do that. it does not set a new standard for living. it asks us to make an exception. it will haunt us later on. that is all i am saying. commissioner sugaya: i might second the continuance, but i do not think the facade is the issue. i kind of liked it. it continues to look like an industrial building. they have not tried to make the windows and the bigger or smaller. -- any bigger or smaller.

for me, the issue is a larger one that other commissioners have voiced. i do not think that can be addressed with renderings. if we do not have the votes, it will have to be addressed through floor plan changes. commissioner antonini: just to clarify, if obviously we have a possibility now for a continuance of five weeks, if i am reading it right -- that might be time for project sponsors to address the concerns about exposure, and see other things that were brought up today. perhaps there might be a way to modify some of the plans a little. maybe a few less units. perhaps some others that are compliant with exposure. certainly, that would be out there. i do not know if that would be a possibility. we could instruct project

sponsors look at the design, and perhaps address the fact that we have so many noncompliant units. perhaps we could figure out a way to make that a lower number. commissioner sugaya: that is fine. president olague: is that a motion? commissioner moore: i appreciate what you're saying. that is a challenge. all of us are excited by adaptive reuse. we have an interesting project later today which tears a building down and put something interesting in its place. there are many ways. there are combinations of the measures which we have seen a number of architects show us quite well how it can be done. other situations in which you have an industrial building which has a front and back on that large of a lot is a challenge. but this is done in the most simplistic way prepared -- the most simplistic way. we need to guide the project to

do a little bit more. commissioner antonini: that is my motion. it is a motion for a continuance to october 20, with project sponsor to address concerns about the number of units that have exposure problems, and perhaps a redesign, to some degree, and also to look at a better rendering of the facade. i am not saying it has to be changed, but if we could have something that shows a little more detail of how it will look when it is finished. that would be my motion. commissioner sugaya: we always have a discussion ahead of the zoning administrator's consideration of the variances. is it not proper to ask the zoning administrator what kind of action he might take? or is he basing it on our

deliberations? scott sanchez: i find i am always well-informed by the discussions and deliberations this commission has. the variance required would be a result of the commission action on the rear yard modification. if the commission were to deny the rear yard modification, it required them to provide a code- complying rear yard, they would not have exposure issues. the exposure, in this case, even though both the alleys are narrow -- they are more than 25 feet in width. it is those units which face onto the rear yard, in this case the courtyard, the require the variance. commissioner sugaya: but with the building facing two streets, in essence, the interiors would

all have to face some kind of courtyard. scott sanchez: exactly. one of the potential arguments for a hardship is the configuration. even though it is a through lot, it is key shaped. that does cause hardship for the property in terms of being able to provide a code compliant courtyard between the habitable segments of the building. vice president miguel: if it is all right with commissioner antonini, would you include in the motion a discussion as to the 210 square foot commercial space that can barely contain a coffee shop? having been in retail, that does not work. commissioner antonini: certainly

i think, and maybe you could comment on that, mr. silberman -- we are saying project sponsors could address all of these, including that concern. part of the redesign might include a slightly larger commercial space to make it more viable as a retail outlet. >> i just wanted to ask a point of clarification. i will cut to commercial after that. i just want to make sure i understand what the commission wants, so we can come back and address your concerns. we have a building that is what line to line -- lot line to lot line, located on two alleyways. in terms of providing the normal rear yard or open space, clearly we cannot do that with the existing building. the only way we can provide access to light and air is but providing an interior courtyard,

which is how the building is designed. if i am given the assignment of providing more light and air, i am not sure what that means. the courtyard is there. it is there for that purpose. we're not going to be able to -- because the building is lot line to lot line, we're not going to provide a yard. the alleyways are narrow. they have always been that way. they do not meet the code as far as units facing out onto alleys. i am asking for clarification. what are you really asking for, so that we can respond to it? i am hearing what the concerns are, but we have some severe limitations on this property that we are dealing with, as the zoning administrator mentioned. we are dealing with some constraints. we would like to address your concerns, and i would like to get a better idea of how you expect that to happen, since the

courtyards, pretty large courtyards, have already been designed into the building. president olague: i am sorry, but we need to hear from the commissioners to give you the clarity you're seeking. commissioner antonini: we realize, given the constraints of the building, and the courtyard cannot be changed in size and is fairly large -- perhaps if you were to decrease the number of units somewhat, and make some of the units a little larger, i do not think any of us expected drastic change in the number of units that satisfy the exposure. there will be exceptions. maybe there will be fewer exceptions with a slight redesign of the unit configuration. maybe a few units are a little bit larger. maybe you could figure out a way that more of them will avail themselves of exposure either to

the courtyard or through the rear or front of the building. i think that is maybe what the other commissioners are looking for, in my estimation. in terms of providing a rear yard, i don't think that is going to happen. i do not know if you have access for the roof to satisfy part of it on a roof or not. that might be another possibility. but those are some of the ideas. commissioner moore: i am not sure who the architect is, but i believe there are a number of ways of how this could be examined. in many projects of a similar kind, we do not have much more than seven to nine units which are exceptions. you can remember what it is like. i do not know who the architect is. i would expect to see a number of alternatives which we would look at depending on their merit. there are different massing ideas.

but this is not thought through. >> i actually wanted to get clarity on that as well. what i think i am hearing from you, with respect to the issue of the units, and please correct me if i am wrong, is it is not necessarily the size of the units, but the exposure, the layout of the building, that is of concern. i do think we have taken to you and recommended approval of a number of buildings with very small units like this. our assumption is that the size of the units is not the problem. it is the layout, the exposure, as well as the rendering issues and concern about the exterior. i wanted to makecorrect. it seems there are a number of ways the courtyard could be laid out, in large, or reconfigured so more units could get a better light and air. in terms of direction, i think

that is what we are talking about. president olague: even in small units, there should be some light and air. it makes sense to me. commissioner sugaya: one suggestion might be, in terms of layout -- you have five units facing on to the alleys. i don't know the code requirements for building exposure and what rooms need to be facing the public street, and that kind of thing. but instead of five, maybe you could consider a reconfiguration of layout that put something like seven to the front, thereby reducing the number of units that need an actual variance or exception to exposure. you could do that, i think in the other direction you have three units facing another

alley. you could have four. that is the kind of direction we would be looking for. >> thank you. i appreciate those comments. >> if you looked at the plans, the way the building is laid out, there are columns that go through the whole building. the courtyard spans the column widths. that is the reason why it is the width is. to ask us to widen that is going to require another structural component that would add a tremendous amount of expense to the project. commissioner sugaya: i do not think we said you needed to expand the courtyard. >> great. that is all i need to know. we can move units around. we can combine columns bases to make different units. we can add a