individuals who volunteer their times on parks i'll give you the names. just to let you, you know, judy and linda the chair of the prince act on the coalition of open space twinkie it's and a mr. stevens and dennis with the take back our parks and chris shaufrtd >> any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> hello, i'm desiree with the san francisco heritage. i think was mentioned our policy committee neither has looked at the element and i would welcome for time to have to look and

examine the element and have more recommendations. i want to offer a couple general comments. bans what we've reviewed there's too much emphasis on modern missing slarp and there should be more language on the existing fabric. we would welcome for time and hope to come back again. >> thank you. any other member of the public seeing none, public comment is closed. and bring it back to commission. this is informational >> i want to make a couple of comments on this entire topic. i'm excited about seeing the historic preservation proposed policies with the recognition as comments have been made about recognizing the nature heritage as a vital part of our history.

and the integration of cultural anal in the discussion of preservation. so i definitely support this tra trajectory. i'm interested in looking sdlo through - so that was this and then the staff report that we received in our packet and for instance, i have a lot of ideas how to add, you know, this philosophy about adding the kurlth and a objectives i haven't written i've made personal notes since this is informational i'll proficient more time to look into this and i want the staff comments on the rose comments that was very well

put together and how we might make recommendations to the report. so those are my 3 areas of comments. yeah. yeah, so >> let's see if i can answer them the last comment about the rose group we are going to respond to all of the comments we all the comments that we get we have a response and a comment so we'll do the same thing. we've got 6 hundred >> okay wu6. i was going to say too i know that i'm sure you're aware of are familiar with the landscape program of the national parks service which is a volunteer program and there's been only 5 hundred surveys done o in the united states and many of them open cemeteries. there are many industrial

landscapes in the country is differ vitality attention for the nature landscapes in which their embedded >> maybe i'll consulate with tim. >> commissioner did you get everything answered. >> yes. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i think it would be great if we could see this again. one thing under the proposed language we need to have a section on identifying cultural landscapes because this project says the historic features but there's it seems like there should be a identification of the features what they might be and then i don't think the way the language is worded implement proicht treatment while responding to the treatment it

applies that you have to do both all the time and you can have something about preserving the historic features. you're not responding to some need because it's a historic feature that is important that language doesn't need to be in there because you can preserve nature without responding to a need >> those are good comments. i know that mar brown is working on the golden gate park designation so she's that probably collected some good stuff that can be part of this as well. i enjoyed and learned a lot. i want to see your response back to the specific areas per particularly i'm interested in the defines of culture or

cultural is not defined so i want to take a look at that. thank you commissioner pearlman >> my comment follows up we do need to pay attention to the fact we evolve and there are new needs you know that couldn't have been anticipated when golden gate park was designed. there wasn't a lot of skate boarding happening then. we need to balance the historic preservation with current needs and future needs is something that's inherit in the review identifying and reviewing of the promotions that happen i agree with the commissioner. >> my last question is november 2013 comes along and this element is released what happens at that time.

>> when. >> when this is approved. >> what happened. >> february 27th. >> we're probably going to push that date out. >> what happens. >> it goes to the board of supervisors. >> then what happens. >> here's the thing we're coming along too years from now, maybe but this is going to be in motion what's going to be in motion i mean basically we're adding on this later does that have any change. >> of the rose. >> why don't we have a robust section. >> honestly like i said, we just heard the historic preservation we heard about it in january. we all agreed to include that

but we've been working for seven years. the girl here is what can we include here for sure and don't forgetting forget we've even if we're adding another element for the historic preservation if that makes sense >> not really but i'm done. >> anyone else? okay. thank you we'll move on. we are going to take a 5 minute break. >> this is the regular meeting for wednesday, february 5, 2014. i want to remind members of the public to turn off electronic

deploys. we left off on case 2013 at the 300 polk street requests for a permit to all the. good afternoon. i'm with the department staff. before you say a major permit for stockton street which is a category 5 in the conservation district that has 5 hundred and 50 square feet building context with both grade components. between stockton and suzette take care street an overview vatd street. that includes the levy store. it will be for a downtown plan

including outlined in the code and by the zoning administer for the various for the transparency requirement of planning code. those cases are scheduled to be heard at the joint hearing tomorrow february 6th. the proposed promise will replace the plazas. the proposed group of work includes reconfiguring the triangle building holding the street corner and the back faces a narrow wing to the west along post street. reducing the height from 4 to 2 stories that will have stainsless steel framing and it will separate the butt glass panels into the street facade.

it will have cast stone. reconfiguring the plaza into a rectangle and renovate it with latin-american and paving. raining and relocating the foundation and the fountain will be moved to the center of the stairs on stockton street. to assist the review we brought it to the architecture body for review and comment on they're meeting on december 4th. the commissioner westbound competency with the proposed design but concerned about the compatible of the street facade. the full steel members were

introduced into the design the base were for the two main entrances. this emphasis on the end bay is a comeional design. the steel framing articulate the facade and break both into bays and atrocities a rhythm to the facade and expresses underlying contrary manner that is in con forbearance to the requirement of earlier 11. to address the ar c comments regarding the structure the revised structure hazed stairs and landing. to subtleness it came palatable.

they have less horizontal complexities. the proposed project extends to the property lines of posting and stockton street and reenforce the structure. to a hallow building at the corner will be acceptable it is based on the corner square they range in height from 3 to 5 stories and to the west is the only historic this on the street. within the broader street the structures range differently and their adjacent to a much taller buildings and the proposed structure a appropriate per overall it matches and it consistent with the buildings throughout the district and it

in compliance with article 11. while there's no specific requirements in the historic district the proposed fashion of the building will be comfortably the capability of the district with the patterns within the district address the proposed stone zoning will be compatible with the design the photo will be carefully removed and protected during construction. when the site is finished the foundation will be moved in a manner that matches the standards. staff has determined the proposed work will, proposed and within article 11 as the new structure will be comparable

with the design as sections 6 and 7 of appendix b it will not damage the character of the district. the department has received xhments comments from the services united workers west expressing opposition and they have received a letter in support. the staff preliminary recommendations for the approval that concludes my presentation. thank you >> any questions for staff before the sponsor begins? commissioner matsuda >> i have a question thank you very much for your presentation. i had a question about this do we ask about legislation? that's referred to in our materials on page 3 for foil number 0359

pending legislation before the board. it goes on to explain what this is why didn't this piece of legislation every dom come before the board. i had to go to the planning commissions agenda to get the summary and as noted i made a comment about where the h pc is on there could you explain that to me why this commission was never aware and never formerly informed of this legislation when it clearly fits into what we do >> i'm going to defer this to those city attorney. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the deputy city attorney. under the carry it says referral to following matters be

submitted to the written report regarding the facts on the cultural resources. it has a list the first item is the resolution of ordinances concerning the historic resources. as i understand the ordinance has ann a definition of the amendment it allows for the demolition of non-performing structures in the district only as they don't effect the historic resources. so within the scope it is outside of the charter. i'm sorry so i'm - >> so the pending legislation that we - was part of the planning commission document this does incorporate the conservation district does it

not it incorporates several buildings. the conservation district we're talking about has specific buildings within that district >> the amendment that ordinance is intend - >> the amendment to this ordinance. >> doesn't apply as a whole it permits don't guess only inasmuch as the demolition won't effect historic resources. so it's basically an ordinance that by itself won't he effect historic resources. that's the intent and that's why it wasn't brought before you. i don't have the ordinance in front of the of me but i can take a look at it to know what specific section it is referring to >> have it.

>> commissioner wolfram in the meantime. >> i have a question for staff. in your analysis the analysis seems like it is all about the design and is it the 4 design or did it come later and it came later staff has not in fact, the 4 design option that was permitted by the project sponsor in your package >> it's the preferred solution. >> they'll describe what - >> they've not exempted on that. >> commissioner pearlman >> i have a technical request about the bar building that's referred to in 3 places as 3 materials as cast stone and on page 6 indiana limestone and on

another page it's another material. >> i believe that the cast stone that resembles indiana line. >> so one the city attorney's. >> basically, the ordinance just talks about the district the ordinance is written as effecting any non-secondary structures in the c-3 r downtown zoning district. so if you narrow this down to the parcel then in the report it has been advised for this particular structure >> i understand that. >> and in the commission what the commission is to accomplish on page 7 of the draft ordinance

it will allow the demolition and reconstruction only if the proposed removal and construction will come to several things. it says in the terms it doesn't apply in the historic district it it were affected

>> okay sponsor if you folks want to get going on our presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm the restrict developer with apple. i'm pleased to present our project here today, it's been a good journey along with the ar c and staff to study the project and you will see today how it's evolved. i think you all remember where we started that's a great journey that is graft will take us on and we have jay here the historic architect and another architect who's a consultant we've developed this into a

world-class building for a world-class city. the building the plaza are really, really phenomenal. when we met with the ar c we heard our comments and we that responded with the 6 bay design and through our studies we understood understand do that the 3 outer columns would be cosmetic there's a structure underneath them so we're coming back today for evaluation. we'll talk about the foundation today as has been discussed, you know, the foundation the placement is incredible it moves forward to the street and it's closer for people to enjoy. the way the steps are

constructed it will fit exactly as the same height and debt as the stairs the way is that it doesn't now expect a bit closer to the street. the whole foundation issue we feel badly how it's been displayed, however, the background on the foundation the hyatt owns the fountains apple does not own it. at the time, we initiated the project the hyatt was responsible for that and since then when he saw what was happening we've come up with an elegant solution and was described we have the right people working on it to insure it's preserved properly and treated with the respect that it

should be. we've also met with community and received feedback on the project. the union square improvement district and the bay area council and they're excited about what this, do draw traffic from up north the retail to market street. and potential in shopping in union sxrar heard feedback from retailers how excited they are that this store can happen in its of current location. so we're looking forward to our review and hopefully, your approval of the project. we're targeting right now to have this store opened in 2014 and look forward to that journey >> while the next speaker is

coming up you've got 11 minutes left. >> good afternoon. i'm james i'm from the one firm mentioned. if i go too fast excuse me. to slow down. i'll start with the location of the building the existing building doesn't conform to the environment it's an urban are form the only triangle buckle in the environment and it was for a form that is more contextual. the thing we like about this site is the architects who drive this is the opportunity to have the plazas and there's one behind the building and they're

not expediting. the plazas is an important part of the design. the existing plaza is an uncomfortable space because it's open and ore proposal is for a slightly larger plaza but it wouldn't be necessarily a smaller plaza we're introducing vegetation and some people know that pail i didn't park in new york contains a more contrary space. this vacancy the building and this is the scheme we proposed to the ar c in december. the comments were to do with the facade overlooking union square

and have some articulation. we worked to add the articulation and rather than introducing columns we wanted to do something interesting so credit is a large sliding door glassed hanging doors. we're we're hoping we're answering the requests are inform the arbitration andtively bring a more function we're not just adding columns the construction is complicated. we as both rick pointed out the columns to the east and he west of this elevation can't be taken down to foundation because of the elements below so their

decorative as a column so we would prefer to go to the scheme where we eliminate those a 4 base theme to force the glaze there's still arbitration that's provided >> i'm sorry can we have the secondary conversation moved out please. when the weather is good we can open up those sliding doors and create an opening of 46 feet wide and the doors are 23 inches wide each. there are possibilities when the doors are opened 10 feet and there's a certain amount of elements that we feel if we add the additional columns it's the commissions views are important

and respect that but we prefer the 4 base scheme. i'm moving quickly how the existing building holds the corner and which is more typical to the urban environment in 9 district. i mentioned briefly about the structure it's a complicated structure the floor and roof propensity have a trust wall that supports all the structure. and then the side walls are purely there as sheer walls so there's a certain amount of support. there are two columns supporting the building and this is the exit staircase in the corner. this is just a plan here. it is including the