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 work with the architects. could you take a look at the color scheme? >> i do not know if it is intended to be white. maybe if you could take a look at it in more context. >> that was polished steel. a metal finishe. >> it is like the other one. all right. >> i agree with commissioner moore's comments. there can be arguments against -- for lowering that 15 feet on very narrow roadways. this is the situation where you have the roadway and it is not

just a narrow roadway. when we take this exceptions, this one does not hold your. i like the design. i think it works. i think the variations on the windows shows that you're willing to work on variations of it. and work with the department. and i have no problem with having the metal cladding. i think it can work. this is nearly a semi-industrial area as it is a residential area. depending on how you put the history together on it. and what has happened to a over the years. commissioner antonini: long ago it was all residential but that was before the first earthquake. i am ok with the 12 or 15 feet.

there is a 15 foot setback. that upper floor is more than the rest of the area. the rest of them are at the height of the adjacent buildings. it is important that of her story be made less visible as much as possible. i will go along with the motion which includes the 15 foot. >> the motion on the floor is for approval per staff recommendation. on that motion, commis? thank you. that motion passes unanimously on the variants. >> closing public hearing. >> you're on item number nine.

case no. 2011. 1111 california st.. >> before the item starts, i have to ask the commission to recuse myself. my condominium is within the designated 500 feet of property that this concerns. therefore i have a conflict of interest or whatever it is called. >> move to reduce. >> second. >> on the move to recuse. commissioner sugaya is recused. >> the afternoon. i am with planning department

staff. the request before you is a condition to use authorization to continue the nonconforming entertainment and assembly use of the masonic center. the change permits in nonconforming use to request authorization to continue operation of a non-conforming use beyond its termination date. by way of background the commission approved the request for the center to change the existing nonconforming use to another entertainment use through the provision of code section 182-b. as part of this the sponsor propose to configure the interior of the center, reconfigure to remove permanent seating, add new food and beverage stations and upgrade the of equipment. because the center had operated since 1958 without substantial operating conditions, part of this included numerous

conditions intended to limit the type and number of annual events, cord made and control parking and loading activities and minimize noise to protect the welfare of the surrounding area. this approval was upheld on appeal at the board of supervisors. in april 2011 the process was rejected which invalidated this operation. the request before you would continue the existing operation of the center in its current form. without the physical improvements and increases in capacity that were part of the pervez project. staff has included many of the same operating conditions from the previous comparable period these are proposed to maintain operating conditions and minimize impact to the surrounding neighborhood. staff has reviewed a list of events held that the center and severally counted those events that would be considered live entertainment such as concerts'

and comedic performances. during this time, the center hosted an average of 54 live entertainment events and 179- live events. this number varies from year to year. staff has proposed a condition that would limit the center to a maximum of 68 live entertainment events in 219 non-live events. this will account for annual fluctuations in the frequency of a man's while limiting the maximum number to reflect historic conditions where no limitation currently exists in order to address the concerns of the surrounding everette. the sponsor proposes to operate five food and beverage stations within the center. alcoholic beverages have been sold at previous events, there is insufficient information to establish a historic average in terms of the number of service stations. the draft motion does not include any conditions on this issue. staff should note the commission may consider whether to have such conditions as part of the conditional use approval.

staff has received a substantial number of comments from the public eye in opposition. the most commonly expressed concern is traffic, noise from patrons and loading, parking impact, crime, vandalism, and public drunkenness. several comments or raised questioning the accuracy of the information regarding the historic frequency of events at the center. staff has received letters in support of the project which stressed the importance of the masonic center as a venue for the spectrum of activities. in considering this project, staff considered the potential impact. staff has considered the importance of the masonic center as a venue to host entertainment, cultural, and civic events of importance to the region. the plan stresses the importance of sustaining such events. i should make one note to with

respect to the staff report in motion that was submitted. regarded -- regarding the termination, the request for the cu -- it reflects no change in existing physical conditions and the city attorney may have some precise language that could be read into the record. i wanted to make the clarification. in conclusion staff recommends and approval of the authorization but recommends the condition imposed the conditions of approval shown in exhibit 8. this concludes my presentation and i would be happy to address details or questions regarding the request. thank you. president miguel: i will open this for public comment. oh, the project sponsor. i am sorry.

thank you. you will recall you approve the use for alterations and intense vacation in 2010. the court overturned and boarded the cu. they are -- a new round of hearings will be scheduled. the hearing is to continue the masonic to continue to operate. no enlargements or intensification. let's review this story record. the masonic was completed in 1958 and has hosted live entertainment events, business meetings, and other events ever

since. the masonic is not a private lunch with only incidental assembly events but rather as a fully permitted commercial entertainment venue. it would be lawful for you in this hearing to simply continue the status quo and impose no limitations or conditions on the interim operations. in this proceeding we and planning staff are not asking you to do that. we're asking you to impose operating conditions to ensure the ongoing operations remain neighborly. the masons along with live nation have operated -- implemented these conditions. managing traffic, parking, loading, noise reduction, neighborhood safety and security, alcoholic beverage service limitations and restrictions on hours of operation.