assume. yeah. no. in our previous discussion about the hyatt putting in more furniture there were comments they should be kept away from the fountain because the ones you've got shown here are awfully close once it's implemented there's a conscious effort to keep them away from the fountain so people can access that and move back and took pictures. also your proposing to have a water feature of some kind of which i assume also is excuse me. africa and not been detailed it's at least about one hundred and 17 photo away or so one hundred and 50 photo away it's pretty far back but i want

consideration to making it a little bit i don't know how to say it less noisy i'd like it to be secondary to the fountain which is a little bubbly thing that shots up in the air. if this can be a quote water with not love disciplinarian >> that's the kind of water that's smother. >> all right. great. then in terms of the fountain itself at least one aspect of that. there's a description of the preparation site preparation and moving and all that good stuff there isn't anywhere in the historic resource report anything to deal with the

conservation. we do have an existing evaluation to look at. that there be any dosage of deration so there must be some conjecture questions i think it's sturdy but those conditions be codified and i hope no replacement but at least conservation treatments recommended along those lines and there be a qualified conservative our to work on this during the process. i think that's the comment so if that can be incorporated that

show should be part of the motion >> okay. back to the horrify the reason i asked the question open the conditional use and itself downtown authorization parallels are that staff is saying that losing 13 thousand some odd number of scapegoat is a positive thing. i think if you think about f it in terms of that amount of retail being lost and the fact that apple we're not giving the approval solely duo to apple but some tenant motive come into m that space and deserves something bigger why we we want to lose 13 plus square footage

that's not going toful. it also a bit solves the hoyt from having to build their observation deck because all of a sudden the 10 thousand square feet bonus that was given to them for that original project is now absolved because it's been reducing so where did they put the buns was it increased height or something else now it soles we're a bit solving something they've taken advantage of and you don't know i don't think that's correct. letting see. on the exemption review i'm in

agreement with the comments it effects a resource additional moving it and relocating it i don't think a bit solves the fact you need to consider it a little bit more in the environmental report. the other thing their jifgsdz in the environmental review why this particular this can - meets the criteria for being in the conservation district. now let me say first it's a great building go about how farly done and probably about how farly decorated but one example we're arguing it creates

a two-part composition we're be talking about a base that's this how; right? and it is under if i'm right it did he sends in the middle the demeanors have to be there and slide open-and-shut and there can't be a step there so all of a sudden we don't have a base on, on package 9 it says it's a slightly raised entrance how on the one hand is there a substantial raised base and on the other hand, it's a slightly race base you do have a 3 part composition it didn't meet the criteria for that standpoint. there's also language in her

that says projecting frame it's a classical material i'm going to go there. and it says that this emphasis open the center baits is a comeional dpoits as noted in the district delegates there's no buildings that are sighted dividing the thing into two parts that doesn'tful. it also says while the metal pan paneling is not typical of the district etc., the majority of material is glass and in the conservation guidelines there are certain materials like panel

that are beautiful colored that's not a masonry structure. i think i've talked about the fountain. and i think that i'll be satisfied if the motion includes the conditions there be a conditional analysis and conservation recommendation made prior to the fountain being moved. so - . let's see. i've already covered some of this.

and going to the planning code text changes i think following up on commissioner wu's comment especially her comment about secondary structures being used before. it seems strange to me in terms of it says the legislation with respect to the number one conforms is actually to the entire property. so how can you single out or separate a structure you can't consider this a separated structure it's an integral part of the structure they've admitted it sits on top of ball room.

but, you kno but, you know, i don't see how this can be applied and how the number one common part is solely the whole levi store when, in fact, the top of the hyatt is number one complying there's an issue here. maybe the city attorney has an answer but perhaps if you're going to try to accommodate it on following up on commissioner wu's comment the su d would be a cleaner way >> let me address that i'll be interpreting this new definition this smaller structure is a acceptance drive structure but

in terms of the legislation as it moves forward if there's other methods i think we can longtime that but this is how it's interpreted. >> i'm done. >> i never know when you're done (laughter). >> commissioner moore. >> perhaps this is to create a definition of a secondary structure i've talked about architects who basically wouldn't call that a secondary structure bitsz it's independent of what we're doing. i have a request about the

material of the common area the sidewalk on sutter and including going there to not the hoyt but on the west side of the alley back on stockton street and the corner of post have a brick side wall for the plaza and stairs to create a brick surface on the entire complex floats. what are the thoughts will changing the materials all around the hyatt so the sidewalk is more uniform on sutter street down stockton street >> okay. so i'd love to do that. >> well, i'm posing a challenge

because i'm not interested in seeing in front of the hyatt and a tracking up on sutter street a brick wall that all of a sudden ends and when the rest of the sidewalk going from the plazas all the way to stockton street becomes a different place the alley also has a brick now, when the surfaces are obsolete how do we resurface it. we already have it junction on top of there's a change in side wall material. our proposal has been inside the property boundary we've been work so we have have not shown

any sidewalk material outside of the hyatt hotel. we've included the change in the sidewalk material adjacent to the store on stockton street and the adjacent to the plaza and changes to the material we're looking a stoop in the plazas as opposed to the brick and looking at the concrete on the sidewalk that's more common to san francisco this is totally in keeping with the - i can't answer that question this is outside the property lion but i'm sure we can discuss that >> i'll leave the planning department with a clear challenge to address that because the intentions is now being replaced to the pavement

on the alley and on sutter street it becomes an oddity it we are trying to toy in union square. i'm in support of project but i want to add a condition. that the full accessibility of this project is being discuses with people liquor mr. planter is one of the strong activists and respected persons in the mayor's office. we've got to do that ourselves it's our responsibility. i believe that the accessibility through this project is an afterthought. i modifying have been in the apple store i love going through it's excited.

however, it's difficult for movement impaired people to find a spot and that is an condition for you to listen. i want this to be discussed by people who are experienced i want to see alternatives and a slow comboin ramp that revises perpendicular where the architecture of the ramp become more a part of the plaza how it meets the second floor of the retail store. overwhelming this building and clearly impressed was never a two sided store it was a one-sided store. we need that challenge.

>> commissioner borden. >> i think we wanted to take the motion separately. the first motion to approval the amended part >> second. >> i'm sorry. >> i want to make one comment about this and i think it's too late to do anything about it but it should have been submitted to the hpgs and the answer from the state hospital was along the lines we recognize this as a historic resource but it didn't have to come before the commission. it says it here that there will be landmark buildings preserved but somebody had to make some

judgment calls and a whether or not it would be effected. this triggers the requirement it go before the historic commission even though it's a round about negative fashion it's liquor saying there's a resource we know it's going to be effected so there's no impact because the historic preservation commission will eventually looking at it anyway. and that didn't work >> commissioners is there's a motion and second on the floor to adapt the proposal. on that motion. - >> for the legislation. this is for item 15.

on that motion. commissioner borden. confusing. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner wu and president fong. that motion does not pass as the vote is 3 to 3 with commissioners wu and commissioner sugaya and another - >> but is this the responsibility - my it's the responsibili responsibility. >> commissioner borden. >> right i'm going to try to make a motion to approve the project with conditions outlined a additional continuing condition they work at

accessibility issues around the plaza and second there's a conservation plan devised for the fountain and i forgot another thing. >> a condition analysis and conservation treatment prior to it being move forward. >> i think that's already been with the plans and specification. if you want to hear from the 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