project sponsor >> no, i think we're fine. >> so that's the motion. >> that's my motion. >> commissioner sugaya. >> second motion. >> no sorry. >> is there a second. >> yeah. second. >> just on the accessibility issue this is somewhat unusual we're doing this ever building has some level of review beyond why we're calling this out every building has got to have those requirements. >> it's a ada requirement not every project goes to the mayors for review prior to our approval we look at the design with the mayor's office of disability for suggestions. >> right. >> i want to add a comment to

that, please. >> since we have a second floor which is a retail story the accessibility to the plaza as well as to the store has to be one that is preliminary in thought at this time it's not. it is in the benefit to deliver the plazas to the public which is a little bit more than two privatized. commissioner sugaya >> yeah. i'd like a city attorney's opinion on the motion and failure of the motion. in order for the project to proceed the commission must see that it complies with the board foiling to allow for the demolition and reconstruction of

a noncomplying floor area and if that's the case how can we vote on this project without voting on the planning code text amendment. >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland. the ultimate decision maker be the board of supervisors. it may behopeful the commissioners who didn't vote for the legislation but choose to vote for the thirty 9 legislation their ability to make those finding but it's not the project will go not move forward without the passage of the legislation but that ultimate decision it up to the board of supervisors. so the thirty 9 is conditional on the passage of that but if

the commissioners can make the,of course it's okay for the commissioners to approve the thirty 9. commissioner borden on your conditions in terms of the the phuong fountain there's a letter and record from the sponsor that details some of the conservation requirement and i just maybe staff could explain what's already in the record and if you want to add to that >> it's not in our. view to add that >> it's already in the project. >> i thought it was a concern

it was already there. >> i'd like to hear it in detail, please. >> planning staff there's a plan in both from package and turner letters regarding the proposed moving and storage and replacement of the fountain and yesterday during the preservation hearing they at a condition to their approval requiring including a conservative our and protect plan that would be presented to the department prior to any

work. perhaps mr. turner ball >> i'm acquit familiar with the moving thing and it's part of the plan but it's very general. i'm looking for a conservativeors report on the condition of the fountain and any deration over the thirty years it's been there and recommendations for damage replacement. it has nothing to do with the putting it back or moving it power up for conservation purposes automotive commissioners i'm jay turning ball we made that going to the pc and we're good to make that commitment to you, too >> i take it not a big deal. >> sorry can i say as part of

the ada issue we have not be able to set up the meeting we certainly want to imply with all ada codes and we'll certainly condition to get to that. >> commissioners both of those conditions are remaining in the notation. >> no they're already been pit forward but we won't - >> so the ada conditional condition will remain and a he can't a y yes. >> procedurally they've amended their motion commissioner hillis is that acceptable? thank you >> are we leaving out the conservation part it's different. >> they've already required

something different. >> i don't know what do the ap c say. >> i haven't put together the motion yet the final motion so oil read from my notes. essentially they wanted two things noigs to the fountain they want the fountain family to be involved and the history and second that they provide a more detailed stabilization plan and protection plan involving a qualified conservationist our for the removal of the plaza >> for the fountain. >> i'm sorry the fountain. >> but i think the language i'm looking for is more along the

lines of condition and treatment recommendations. >> i think we'll end up is similar. yes. there's not being any reason not to have similar conditions but - >> yeah. because the condition i'm thinking of would go to the h pc. >> right. >> so if you can sort of incorporate that idea to the h pc i'm fine. >> perfect so - >> commissioner wu. i want to be sure i understand the city attorney. i plan to vote for the thirty 9 but i think there was some advise to make a statement for the project >> no, we voted on the

relationship. >> let me review the finding for the thirty 9 motion if you just give me a second. >> i can read those it says the way the ordinance was drafted it puts the going for the individual project to be reviewed through the thirty 9 process through the planning commission so the removal and reconstruction be in the district and have a retail designation and have it a benefit to the public and enhance the aesthetic qualities and net in a decreased area and rudiment in a floor limit of the property and not have an impact to a historic resource and not

cause shadows on windows or park and not sighting impair light and air to an u butt building. >> thank you. known as it's just that you are acknowledging that this is all right previously existing number one conforming use and a the essence of what's permit by the ordinance is something you're in agreement with that needs to happen in order to allow the 309. part of my discussion was looking at different ways to achieve that legislation and a exactly. okay. thank you. i think that's fine >> commissioner moore. >> i have a difficult time

understanding the stipulation that that's for non-conforming use it was built with the inspections in plays. >> it was developed at the time through the bonus process it explodes the fdr their building it is smaller thereof it wouldn't imply with the current code. >> that's the reason one of the criteria is a reduction in the floor area so this makes it more in conformity with the current code. >> we've done that for other legal number one conforming structures. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second on the floor

to approve the requester for determination of inclines with conditions to include that ada accessibility be discussed with the mayor's office of sdaktd. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. i said i. commissioner sugaya. commissioner wu. president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes with commissioner sugaya voting against. the scoping administrator what say you >> you move to close this hearing. >> why do we >> commissioners, we left off on your regular calendar item 13 for case no. 2013.1331c for 435 jackson street. this is a request for

conditional use authorization. please note that after hearing and closing public comment, a motion to approve with conditions failed 3 to 2. commissioners moore and sugaya voted against. commissioner antonini and fong were absent. the matter was continued to february 26, '14 by a vote of 4 to 1. commissioner fong, you were abseptember on that date. in order for you to participate, you need to acknowledge you reviewed the video or audio file and are prepared to consider this item. >> absolutely in a comfortable setting i reviewed the video and am prepared to take action on the matter. >> thank you. ~ absent >> thanks, i'm presenting the case for [speaker not understood] who is out of the office today. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to establish an office doing business as design blitz at 435 jackson located

within the jackson square special use district as well as the jackson square district. the project sponsor proposes to establish an office that is approximately 1600 square feet of commercial space. the proposed office is an architectural and design firm and they collaborate already greatly with a lot of design firms in the area. staff recommends approval and believes that this project is necessary and desirable. the project sponsor is here to make a presentation. i'll turn it over to them right now. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm seth [speaker not understood], architect, co-founder and principal at design blitz. this is my partner, co-founder at design blitz, melissa well

en. we've been working six months on this and growing, and we're hiring. [speaker not understood] hopefully in jackson square with your approval. we want to tell you who we are, what we do, and what our plans are there in jackson square. as mentioned, we are an architecture and interior design firm. we started in san francisco in 2009 [speaker not understood] and i'm pleased to say now we're a thriving small business of 10 people. we service mainly local companies, but we also work locally. we've been published globally and we do work across the u.s. and europe and i bring this up because i just wanted to point out that aside from contributing to the economy, we also contribute to the city's brand name image as a design leader. we are hiring, as i said, and we need bigger space. we're a local business and we also live in telegraph hill and over half of the blitz team lives in san francisco. employees who live in san francisco walk, cycle or take public transportation and those who live outside use the ferry.

we anticipate most visitors arriving the same way. our hours are 8:00 to 6:00, but it's open earlier and later than that. those of you in architecture know how it goes. we're visited by clients regularly and [speaker not understood] foot traffic along jackson street. this is an excellent activation and also increases exposure for existing businesses. a big part of what we do is specified products including architectural items, finishes, et cetera. we strive to find those products locally obviously it makes sense to support our local community whether that be california or san francisco. and a sustainable approach to buildings. to that end we work with a lot of local showrooms and interact with several who are already on jackson street. jackson square s.f..com describes this area as the premiere art, antiques and design destination. we any we're a great fit for this neighborhood and it will enhance its already great

reputation as a design reputation. >> just to build on that there are several showrooms [speaker not understood] creative wood, other showrooms that contribute to the design [speaker not understood]. we do business with auction. demonstrating our products and our projects. having them a couple doors down would be really convenient. >> store front locations, part of our vision at blitz. we want to encourage public participation in design and de mystify [speaker not understood] objects. our other location is in [speaker not understood], california, and it's also a store front. we received several commissions directly from walk ins since we opened three months ago. we're not a traditional retailer, but like any other street level business that incorporates reception style greeting like a salon or restaurant, we greet at the door. we're not doing anything new or unusual in that respect, except maybe for an architecture firm. we're building in showroom components in the front windows.

in addition to be being a showcase for our work, windows include revolving displays. we work with local retailers to provide a store front for them increasing walk ins for us. it is in our interest to keep this refreshed as it raises our own business profile. in conclusion -- >> and -- yeah, heckle [speaker not understood]. it's not a traditional retail neighborhood. showrooms, antique dealers in this neighborhood. but you can't just walk in off the street. you have to have an appointment or be buzzed in these retailers. it's not like a standard cvs or something else. you have to have a purpose for being there and let in the space. they're all secured. >> so, in conclusion, we think we're a great new asset to this design destination. to my knowledge, we have received no objections from the local community and only support. so, we hope that our cup will be approved and we look forward to living and working in this area.

and i'd like to introduce john [speaker not understood], who remits the building ownership if that's okay. >> good evening, commissioners, john dovervich on behalf of the owner. we're excited about representing the team. we have been marketing a year cushman wakefield, but we didn't have interest from the retail side. this is the only potential den ant we've been able to get [speaker not understood]. we hope you approve the credit. ~ request. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment? there being none, public comment is closed. commissioner hillis. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, on that motion to approve with conditions, commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? commissioner sugaya? commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners,

that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioners moore and sugaya voting against. commissioners, you are on your last two items for this hearing. shall we call them up together, items 18 and 19? so, commissioners, items 18 and 19 for case numbers case no. 2013.0401c for 875 and 901 california street, request for request request for conditional use authorizations, plural. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. kate connor, planning department staff. you have a proposal to modify conditions of approval and reduce the parking requirement for the stanford court hotel. and also reclassify existing garage located at 875 california street as a community garage. the proposal involves two

properties and two separate request conditional use authorization. draft conditional use authorizations are included in your packets. the first conditional use is for a modification under planning code section 304 to reduce the parking provided for the hotel to 7 spaces. by providing these spaces in the hotel's existing [speaker not understood] there. the original conditional use in planning commission resolution number 62 41 establish hotel use and incidental commercial uses and professional offices and condition that 100 parking spaces be provided within an existing garage located at 875 california street. thereby, converting an entirely to parking for the hotel. the first conditional use severs the ties between these two properties. the second conditional use is to reclassify the garage at 875 california street as a community garage. as required in resolution number 62 41, the current use is a garage associated with the

stanford court hotel. the proposal involves no alterations or changes in operation. the effect on the surrounding neighborhood is negligible. the project is desirable for and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. as such the department recommends approval of both conditional use authorizations and conditions for the following reasons. the parking requirement in planning commission resolution number 62 41 is excessive and is contrary to our current general plan transit first principles. severing the ties between the two properties allows for greater development potential at the property at 875 california street. pursuant to planning commission section 304, the more posed reduction in parking for the hotel is adequate for the occupancy that's proposed. recent hotel approvals have included no on-site parking and this property located two blocks to the east or two blocks to the south, there would be no parking requirement. parking in the existing [speaker not understood] is also screened from view.

by converting the garage at 875 california street to commissioner wuedthctionv garage, the use serves a greater population, especially residents in the surrounding area. ~ garage the department is not aware of any opposition to this proposal and this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission, i'm jim rubin, rubin junius and rose, representing the owners of the stanford court. historically the stanford court was converted from apartments in 1968 by a fellow named cal rossi who is a very colorful developer back then. the attitudes about parking were pretty much precisely the opposite as they are today. and as a condition, i wasn't there, i didn't see it, but i assume there was some concern about parking. and they conditioned -- your predecessor commission

conditioned the approval of the conversion of the apartment building into what became the stanford court hotel on tying two parcels together. can i get the overhead? there we are. this is the garage. as you can see, it's across the street and removed one parcel, and this is the hotel. so, for the last 45 years or so, these two have been tied together. the only thing that surprised me when the stanford court asked me about this was that they didn't do it 20 years ago. but we're asking today is to sever the two, allow the garage to continue as a community garage and the stanford court will go on its own. ~ what with parking selling cars and its port [speaker not understood]. i'm available to answer questions if you have any. as did you hear, by the way, the last two hotels to be approved were 94 2 mission and 250 port street and neither of them had any parking requirement. thank you.

>> public comment if there is any? seeing none, public comment is closed. one question. so, does stanford court own the garage or that's separate ownership that there was an agreement between the two? >> sorry. stanford, the stanford court ownership has always owned the garage. there have been changes in owners of the two buildings, but they remain owned by the same entity. >> and what about the corner -- corner vacant lot that's there next door? >> the corner vacant lot is i believe now owned by the same entity within the last year or so. so probably at some point there will be a development opportunity for the garage, but that's not before you now. there are no plans. that i've seen. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> kind of interesting when you walk by there how in the last few years the hotels, visitors

in san francisco could only arrive much by carney more. and particularly up on the hill, i happen to live up there, the majority of people come by as a means. on the other hand, when i look at the university club and the stream across the street, i'm sorry to say [speaker not understood] perhaps mr. rubin is a member. they're parking in the alley in froth of the lab is an absolute nuisance and i wish they would be asked to use this garage if the commission approves the public use of this garage for their parking because we are losing the ability to maintaining and operating hours in the ways they're meant to be [speaker not understood]. i'm kind of supportive even if the ownership pattern isn't concerned.

and that separating the two seems appropriate. so, let's see. the first motion, move to approve the request conditional use authorization first. ~ ~ >> second. >> separating the two, right? 875 in one case. okay. on that motion for item 18 to approve with conditions,

commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? excuse me. commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. >> commissioner wu. >> and move to approve the ceu regarding the community garage. >> second. >> on that motion for item 19, to approve with conditions, commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. and places you on public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment this evening? okay. seeing no public comment, the

meeting is adjourned. [gavel] [adjourned]