make sure we get that hearing and the report in front of us so we can consider it in public. supervisor olague: it is a start here, and we will have more work to do there, i guess. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> ok. commissioners, thank you. we can now move on to general public comment, a duration of 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public might address you on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission, with the exception of agenda items, which may only be discussed when those items meet the calendar. members of public may address you for up to 3 minutes, keeping in mind that the entire category

is 15 minutes. president miguel: i only have one card. jackie? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am not mystery -- that mystery requestor. the adventure continued as i appeared. in fact, it turns out that -- i am streamed alive? -- l ive? -- live? wow. you can dial it up, or whatever one does. what was intriguing -- i want to say what a pleasure it was for me to appear before these various commissions, because you listen. you are intelligent life forms. i do not have to hide what i am.

i like that. i also like that you are internalizing when, like with his gorgeous person over here, we are watching this incredible juggling thing going on. because what we had here was a failure to communicate. apples, oranges -- we were talking about the same piece of property, but there was no notification of the neighborhood that there was the business of the address labels. i could not get my reasonable accommodation. i could not get the address labels done. i missed out on the d.r. that worked out well, because otherwise i would not have been able to appear before these other people, and they pointed out that the neighborhood needs to be notified. as far as these addresses are concerned, the information is

already there. it would be easier on people like myself if we did not have to come up with address labels for addresses that are already in progress. with the notification, the planning commission had one set of notification requirements. with the department of building inspection, there was a reconfiguration on the inside of the building. the neighborhood did not need to be notified of what was going on. but the natives are restless. we are really upset. they are going to need to smooth some very ruffled feathers, starting with mine, because they did not do any neighborhood outreach. people on the building are going to move in without talking to jackie bryson and her crew. there needs to be notification

of the neighborhoods. whatever can be done for the transparency needs to happen. it is going to save the city lawsuits. and i really believe we can teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. we just need to sing in our own keys and all be in the room at the same time. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon. i wanted to talk about the washington project, which will be taken off before too long. we have heard alternative uses proposed for sea wall lot 351. this refers to the asian neighborhood design so-called community plan. one of the things that is striking to me is how amazingly closely the goals called up for in the a.n.d. plan are satisfied

by the eight washington project. what they asked for, this delivers, with the exception of allowing change at the swimming and tennis club. we heard the plan calls for a bicycle transit center instead of a surface parking lot for cars. a great idea. who could possibly oppose that? but who is supposed to pay for that? there is not a business. there is not a bicycle transit center that runs as a business. conspicuously absent is the san francisco bicycle commission. is there a plan to pay the city rent? why not affordable housing at this location? what a great idea. who could possibly oppose affordable housing? we would not, except we know the city is broke. the state is broke. is the federal funding no one has heard about that could make it? the opponents on this -- would they accept low income housing

for families of similar size and shape on the site as the eight washington project proposes? i think i know the answer. as part of this design, let it go. do not develop it. make it up on the northern lots. having been to dozens of those community hearings and meetings, i think those are mostly zone at 40 feet. those should not be developed possibly even at 40 feet. they are saying shift its somewhere else. let this slide. we will not use it at all. i guess the thing about these alternative uses is that, in effect, it gets down to the port -- that is, the people of san francisco -- shifting the land in some way to the opponents of the project, who will not tolerate any change ever at a private swimming and tennis club. i guess the thing that makes it

so tough is that this represents a very significant economic subsidy by the city of san francisco to one of its most privileged neighborhoods. it seems like a real raw deal for the city of san francisco. president miguel: is there additional general public comment? if not, public comment is closed. >> thank you. commissioners, you can move forward to your regular calendar, with item 8a and b. as you consider the conditional use request, the zoning administrator will discuss a request for variance. >> diego sanchez. i present a request for a conditional use authorization

for the demolition of one residential unit and the new construction of a four story, 2 unit multi-family business. there is a ground floor used as an eating and drinking establishment. the zoning administrator will hear a request for variance from the planning code section 145.14 funding requirement, because the project does not have a 14 foot height at a ground floor. the summit of the instructor will also consider relief from the rear yard -- the zoning in minister will also consider relief from the rear yard requirement. it is in the south park district and is immediately south of south park. the project sponsor and department have worked diligently over many months to reduce the number of

inconsistencies with the planning code and on the over all mass and scale of the design. we believe this meets the requirements of section 303. it is crafted to meet the intent of the general plan. and it meets the criteria under section 317 for residential demolition. on this note, i would like to provide an amendment to the condition of approval number four. there will continue to work with department staff, producing a setback on the ground floor commercial space, and increasing its consistency with surrounding eligible historic district. i will shoot that amendment to you right now. further, as outlined in the case report, staff believes it is appropriate to maintain a 15 foot setback on the fourth

floor, a standard modification for any proposal for which height exceeds those on adjacent structures. the department recommends approval of the conditional use authorization, for the following reasons. the structure is in a state of disrepair. it is uninhabitable. it was approved for demolition in 2003. the proposed project would remove a blighted structure and improve use of the property. it results in a net gain of a four-bedroom unit in a ground- floor space to identified as an eating and drinking establishment. this provides a development that is desirable, compatible, and compatible with the neighborhood. the project is desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood in its scale and proposed uses. the sponsor has diligently used with members of the community to address concerns, and has altered the proposal in response. these letters of support are a tribute to that effort.

i can distribute those to you as well. the department recommends approval because the neighborhood is well served by transit. there is adequate opportunity to travel to the site, using public transit. we recommend approval because the product meets all applicable requirements of the planning code for seeking relief or variance. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am appearing on behalf of the project sponsors. thanks for the presentation. as was mentioned earlier, the house on this site is in a state of this repair, and has been for

a long time. it has been vacant since the late 1990's, and the commission previously approved it for demolition and for a surface parking lot to take its place. that never came to fruition and the house has been decrepit since then, literally falling apart when the sponsors bought it. the need for demolition is self evident. if there are questions, the engineer who prepared the soundness report is here to answer questions. before i turn it over to the architect, i would like to set the stage. the design is a collaboration between two architect who have worked over the past several months to square direction from the department and feedback from the neighborhood. after a lot of painstaking work, we have significant support from the neighbors. you have received those letters, including one from jeffrey leibowitz of the south park

improvement association. we are receptive to the department request to continue working on the facade of the building after this hearing. however, it is our strong preference not to increase the setback of the fourth floor beyond the 12th be provided. we feel that is sufficient to mitigate the difference in scale between the proposed new building and the one next door. we would also like to maintain the ground floor commercial space set back to provide a better connection between the street and the restaurant, and maybe an opportunity for outdoor seating. we can walk you through the rational for that. with that, i will turn it over. i am available for questions. >> hello, commissioners. is this power point going to come up?

>> it will, eventually. >> my name is cass smith. i am the design architect. the architect of record is also here. if there are questions about the inside of the building, he can answer that. i am also a commissioner on the arts commission. let us go into this. this is the site. i kind of got a mouse here to work with. you can see the yellow. that is the site. it goes through from the park to the back alley, like most project to. the pattern of development down there is generally nice facade and then an alley with automotive entrances. the pattern of development down

there has been what i call modern-industrial. this down here is an existing- style commercial loft building. there are more modern ones. sorry about that. i think one thing to note is that everywhere in the park, even though there is a general industrial-modern aesthetic, each building is unique and different. i think that is nice. it is a little unique. you do not see that some much in a cluster, like it is here. on the lower part is the basement. the upper drawing is the ground floor, which is mostly the cafe. you see south park on the left, with the garage in the rear. one thing to note is the

residential entry is right here. there is the restaurant. pedestrians going to the loft will come in here, where as to the restaurant you come in here. when you come up to the second floor, there is a three-bedroom unit. it has outdoor space here. you go up to the third floor and fourth floor, which are four- bedroom units. the top unit has roof access. there is nice outdoor space. a good thing we are doing -- right in here, this is a large light port that allows for skylights into the cafe and sidelights for the others. that was a voluntary element, and we think it will be very nice to live with that. this is an overall birdseye rendering that explains the design of the exterior building.

the upper floor, which is the top floor, has a four-bedroom units in it. it is set back 12 feet from the the sun. the part facing the park has a little more detail than the rear part, as you can see here. next slide. this is a view looking at it from down below, looking toward the intersection of third and brannon, in that direction. there is a shallow well so this side of the building does show. this other angle is where i will explain the rationale. from a distance, it is one overall building which goes from

the ground to the roof, and then it has three main points of emphasis that are related to the specific use. each of those are recessed from the front a different depth. the smallest one on the right is the residential and tree, like i showed you. to the left is the cafe itself. we are reassessing that so there is enough room in front of it -- we are a recessing that so there is enough room in front of it for dining. we are trying to create a more pedestrian-active zone. up above, it is recessed as one element to express their residential use, but somewhat subdivided. the glazing is a combination of colors and opacities that creates a little more detail and interest where we think the most

important and in the picture -- a unique piece of the architecture is emphasized. there are frames and facades that represents some of the elements i am showing. as you move around the building, this is the side and the alley part, which is proposed to be corrugated painted metal, which is a very common material in the neighborhood, very contextualiz. toward the light court will be a metal grating that is in the same area. it will allow light and air to come through. the corrugated metal comes around again to the garage below and the rear entrance. this lower part in dark blue is at the highly space, and the

upper part is set back quite a bit. that is where the open space that is. -- deck is. we did a couple of sketches yesterday because we heard there was concern about the design of the regular windows, which we like. -- the irregular windows, which we like. i think if we continue to work with staff and city planning, we can come up with something. this is one i showed you earlier. this is one where we are increasing the amount of glass, but it is the same design. this is a little different, where we are seeing the randomness, but the frames and divisions of the window will become a solid metal parts to add to the composition. this is another version of that. it is solid right through the floor area, and then in has a structural floor behind it. this is a little bit different.

we are continuing some of the facade metal across the opening, having the windows either right behind that, or there would be bought in the space between the windows-- balcony space between the windows. this is a similar design, but projected slightly from the face of the building, about 4 inches. it is not like a bay window. it is just out a little bit. here is a cross-section of the building. it is pretty complex. to help get the front of the cafe to look higher from the street -- it is higher at the front, and slopes down once you get behind the glass. even though the project is not as high as anybody would like, it is pretty high. thank you. president miguel: is there any

public comment on this item? if not, public, it is closed. commissioner? commissioner antonini: i had a couple of questions, for mr. sanchez first. on the parking, i see there are two spaces, but they are being designated one for the commercial space and one for the residences, even though you have one residents. it would seem more appropriate that each residence has a parking place. that seems to be an area that is relatively easy to park in, especially at night. there is availability from transit and other ways. but once you have a car, you would like to be able to put it somewhere. i do not understand why we do not have one: one parking -- have 1:1 parking here.

>> the planning code here restricts the amount of parking dedicated to residential uses to one parking space for every four dwelling units. given two dwelling units, there is a provision in the planning code which allows you to round up fractional parking requirements, which gives them one. anything in excess of that would require a conditional use. i think the zoning administrator can confirm that. there is also a provision in the eastern neighborhoods zoning districts that eliminates the possibility of requesting that conditional use if you are also requesting relief from a street frontage as requirement, which is what they are doing with the ground floor height. they have been tied up with the planning code restrictions. that are maximizing the amount of parking that is allowable,

dedicating one at to residential use and one to the commercial space. commissioner antonini: it would seem as though those things are not mutually exclusive. unfortunately, that is on the code. you are dealing with entirely different things. with the narrowness of the alley, you need the wider rosh coarser you can get in. -- wider garage door so you can get in. those things in the code unfortunately are connected, but they should not be, in my opinion. the same thing with the set back or additional height of the ground floor, which serves a good purpose for the commercial establishment and make it fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. that is too bad. it may be the best we are going to do with that. i have a few other comments on the design. i think that i would like to continue to work with staff to refine the design, particularly

the windows. this is moving toward the middle of the south park area. while we have some more contemporary structures to were the third street side, generally, most of the structures have a more traditional context, as you are in the middle of self park. it is very pleasant. i think windows that try to be more contexture will-- contex tual will be more comfortable to the eye. the second rendering the architect showed seemed to be moving in that direction. it seems as though the structure to the west -- i am not sure if that is a new structure or was redesigned. whatever it was, they have done a very good job of making that fit in the neighborhood. perhaps something more like a punch windows would help a lot. the other part of it is there

are a lot of elements that are at diagonal angles, which i think again sort of does not seem to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood, which are mostly things at 90 degrees. those are just some comments. the other is that there is an attempt to have a small cornice above the commercial space. i think if that were a little wider, even in the form of an awning or a heavier cornice, it is more contextual, and relates better to the space to the west of their. -- west of there. and it seems to divide up the commercial and residential. i am not sure i like the metal treatment on the rest of the building. maybe in my opinion it would fit a little better if the entire surface was more of the -- i think it is slight.

i am not sure what the material is on the outside of the face of south park. but it seems to be a nice material and a nice color. those are just my opinions on some things we could do with staff. as far as design is concerned, it is one of our most historic and pleasant neighborhoods there. we would like to make sure it stays that way. president miguel: is there a motion? commissioner moore: i think as a small building i find this actually interesting and in contrast to what is there, i think laudably small. i find it a modern design, including the site elevation. it is not objectionable. i would agree with staff that the window treatment is something which could be improved.

i was interested in seeing some of the quick sketches, just as commissioner antonini mentioned. but generally i am comfortable with the approach to design. it has gone through a number of reiteration since we first saw it. we pushed it back. i think it architect, in his collaboration, has made a large effort to listen to the concerns which were expressed. i personally do not see an issue. i would move to approve, with the specific conditions that the department is asking for. commissioner fong: i will second that. i have before not been a big fan of a lot of glass and modern architecture, but i think this street can withstand it. i think there are examples where there are unique designs.

i am pleased, the way it is presented right now, and second that motion. commissioner sugaya: i want to clarify, staff, and the maker of the motion -- if we are moving the project with staff conditions, that includes the setback, right? thank you. commissioner the consistency of using 15 feet rather than going to 12 or 13, please remember that there is a fair way of dealing with the issue. there is a situation that 15 feet was desirable. and it is for that reason i support the 15 feet you are suggesting. >> one last thing as long as we're having staff