i like about the project. i think the comments about the base has been addressed. the large door and breaking down the facade in the bays is successful. i personally don't have a preference brown whether it's 4 bays or 6 bays. as i said the ar c meeting i think the plaza is a - will be a wonderful space. it improves the context for the roof fountain. i don't have a particular concern about the stockton street facade with exception maybe setting precedent. some of the things that have not been addressed from the ar c ru6 address one of the scale i don't see the project have changed

role significantly enough to change the scale. we could i guess debate whether it brings it down to the pedestrian level or not that's up for debate. i expressed a concern there's no corn on this building it would be in the middle of the block and the design is the same. the height of the building and the staff analysis says it matches the adjacent building bus it's only the bar building it matches. i continue to have concern about the height. the other two buildings at least one of them the nicky building open the one corn and the other digitally their 7 to the stories so this corner drops down

especially there's no demarco in this design. the base as commissioner pearlman mentioned is still weak. >> its a more creative solution than the one we saw previously. >> commissioner. >> i had a question about the dates i don't know how this was dealt with but on the west side the sidewalks go down so you've got a a little bit of a well, how was that dealt with before. >> previously in front of the of the store it was next to the street so there's no steps so it ties into the level of the sidewalk. >> one entrance. >> so steps open up on the east

and west side so there's a flat side in front of the facade that's set back to gain access to the doors on either side. >> yes. i have some additional comments. i do think the addition of the bays has helped to break up the scale and give scale to the facade and commissioner pearlman stressed it provides more of a rhythm. and i would say that in terms of compatible if you had done a building that's modern we wouldn't like it, it's an iconic

expression. so the comparability is having the big demeanors it's not repeated enough i know the 6 bays of representation helps gives a scale of height that allows for compatibility with the district itself. >> there's an irony about the scaling that breaks down the facade but at the same time you have 46 high scaling so all of a sudden you have a hole in the building so it's kind of a funny conflict. i appreciate it, it's an interesting part it means that the building isn't static and it creates a lot of interest in a high result zone to have a facade and pieces that actually

change over time in the winter it's closed but in the nurses weather it would be opposing open so there's an animation to that every time i go, go by there is a positive part of making that more tactal in a scale organization >> i think this district can support a box building because of the elegance of the structure are. it does in the district because it's simple and straightforward. that's why i like the stairwells stole it has depth to it. to me it didn't feel like metal >> i do have a question i see lots of fingerprints. i'm wondering if everything is going to put their fingerprints

on it is there going to be a coating. >> it will pick up finger oils we maintain on our current stockton store this is the same materials. >> oh, the same materials. >> yep. >> i'll comment we have 4 large issues; right? the plazas and ar c compatibility and the legislation sequa. i'm adding a fourth the existing building in comparison. the existing building when i longtime it is a pedestrian billboard and they've covered up the walls. in the also been a goofy building and leading into the

plaza it felt off. so i'm a huge fan of getting rid of the existing building. the plazas i actually think it will be notifying. we're adding temple thousands trees in the next 20 years this is exactly what f this plaza does. it pays a hire you homage to the fountain it centers it and makes it the absolutely crown peak of that plaza and i think the trees anticipate the distance fountain notify you to walk up and spend time there. i'm not sure on the sun but it seems like it would be getting more sun in the afternoon. so i'm a fan of that. the ar c compatibility on material. i'm looking the existing

building it has steel columns this project uses stole in a different way. then you go down to the street to grant like macy's the same thing. unnecessary man marking is a big building behind glass. it's the same materials use ins a different fashion. that's not it. i feel it fits the scale. i mean their shortening a what is there by a if you feet. the legislation and the sequa though, you know, should we can commenting on that? yeah. and so, you know, then this leads into we have a 4 bay proposal their propping 6 maybe some other questions on the corner. and so i'd like i'd like to hear

in the commissioners sort of where we want to go on the legislation we need to solve that is that a continual issue where we comment at the next meeting on the legislation first and go to the promise. we've done that before and i'd be curious if there's acceptable to the combhigs director ram >> the legislation i guess the way to think about the legislation in our mind is simply it's one piece of 50 pieces of planning legislation that comes before the commission and every time the legislation comes to the department we have to decide whether that legislation itself will affect the resources. in this particular case the call

was simply it doesn't flaet affect the mechanism in the code that's proposed it can't affect the resources that's why we choose it. there are many pieces of legislation that come to the planning commission and before the board and so there are many pieces of legislation that come in some fashion be argued sort of indirectly affect the resources. because this specifically says by definition you can't use the mechanism if it affects the resources so in our interpretation it doesn't require the city attorney to make this call. we have to make in call every time >> thank you commissioner

johns. >> excuse me. city attorney wishes to responded. >> city attorney. i agree with the interpretation that's put forth but if the commission would like to hear the legislation actually just to clarify the comments before i want to say this ordinance that is before us will effect the resources prior to page by the border there's no requirement in the charter you have to consider the legislation today. the board is not going to consider this it's credit card by the planning commission tomorrow but the historic sequa analysis differs as part of the package because under sequa you consider the whole package so

it's credit card under the sequa analysis >> thank you commissioner johns. >> okay. after listening to what you said and mr. ram said it seems like this is now putting on the lawyers hat that historic resources are unquestionably excluded under the lengths it didn't offend me at all it didn't take away from our jurisdiction or anything that we are doing. if it were worded differently it would be a different matter but it so specifically does not apply to historic resources i have no problem with it >> thank you. commissioner johnck >> well, i basically agree with you commissioner johns.

i don't think this ordinance i would have been interested to consider this but it's not necessary for this purpose to hear it today. and i don't disagree that the fountain is a historic resource and the developers have treated it appropriately in the new design. we need to think about the fountain as a historic resource. it's important that commissioner matsuda recommended that due care and attention be given to the points about the family being involved and that kind of thing. i will bring up the madam chair you didn't mention the madam chair. i think it's important whether to move that i don't know from an architecture point of view where it should be and if the madam chair is the end all of

the fountain but i think it's very important for the public to be aware of the value of that resource >> commissioner pearlman before i call on you i will say that the comment on the madam chair to add a brazil madam chair for the core sense of the fountain. >> in response defined the historic resource here so that's part of the discussion technically is the fountain is a historic resource. i mean has it been determined to be a historic resource. i thought see. so my question is obviously the building isn't it's not considered contributing to the district and it's only 35 e.r. 40 years old so if it does affect the historic resource i mean in terms of making the judgment the fountain is in the

process t is this something we should be considering. that's role to the department. and i would say to what scale and a exactly i think it's been handled properly and moving it ten feet is not a big deal it's still meeting all the requirements i'm saying technically with the law >> commissioners the sequa analysis of the project stated that the fountain is an individual historic resource and appendix to that was the historic resource evaluation response which also cites you is to the report analyzing the fountain as an individual

resource and finding that the moving it and the placement would not be a significant impact under sequa. >> so any other comments sorry. mr. freeway >> tim freeway is your question whether or not the h pc has review authority and no, no it was a technical question. it feels like everything leads to a lawsuit. and if we are talking about whether this should the legislation should come to the h pc because of a historic resource present and the department is a saying it's not but then again, it talks about the affect on this historic resource and it's obviously a less than affect we're walking

this very, very fine thread of what's appropriate to be here relative to the 4.130 section >> again, i think also to follow up on director rams comments is the aside from the legislation was it states apples commitment to make sure that the fountain be taking care of appropriately mitigates the impact that's why it's category lee equally acceptable. if the commission wants 80 take action it's completely in our purview to act about involving the family more and having a stabilization and relocation plan

>> what we have before us. >> exactly. >> and it still seems liquor it a less impact whether or not they're involved. >> okay. any other comments and i just wanted to suggest that you under the historic resources responded on page 4 it doesn't include love information that i think should be considered so under criteria one i believe that the fountain should be considered under this criteria because this fountain was created with over 2 hundred school kids and i i think one hundred and 50 form people who live here in san francisco. it was probably one of the first

grass rots projects that of created in a public space that's very san francisco very 1970s. you should add something to that and criteria 2 ruth is a pretty white light known figure go to her website and see her pieces of work start at $150,000. this needs to be considered when you consider the individual. and what i can lend to you or give you a copy there was actually a 49 page booklet and it was called ruth for the san francisco foundation. that could give you a lot more historical context to the fountain >> if i could just somewhere

commissioners you have a comment. >> i want to make a motion. >> my comment would be if we're rode to make a motion the only over residing issue is the section 134. we can take it up so commissioner johns. i do think that the offer arching at home is the compatibility of the district but when it comes down to our. view and a today, i think the word elegant was used the big e word and in keeping with the evolving tradition of union square as a major retail and a park setting and continual

branding for more than over one hundred years. i'll add conditions related, however, commissioner matsuda or someone want to amend the months ago to include conditions to the fountain >> i want to add a friendly amendment to ask that the plan work closely with our family and they've agreed to work with pager and a turning balance and be sensitive to the context of the fountain and a bring back to planning a specific plan about how that's going to be. this was first applying do and now it's a delicate project when you touch it up at all it should be removed as a whole. it's important that you see a very much more than what we see

today a very clear complex sensitive plan about how it's going to be taken apart or removed and stored and put back together >> we'll say the family gets involved. >> i'll second the motion as amended. i'd like to add an amendment >> i want to make one quick comment about the evolving nature of any city we're looking at the moore store he would have to get a variance there would be a lot of things that are not compatible but those are buildings that get cherished in the future. my amendment would be the 6 bay

design hi >> that will be in observer draft motion. >> the draft most. >> for the 6 bays. >> right no amendment. sorry. i remove that >> it's the staff recommendations. correct >> so we want to reread that - >> i saw a fountain i don't remember where i read this is there any stipulation we can put on i think there is a question about who is responsible i know the answer is the project sponsor is having is there any economic. >> the permit won't go forward. >> right but could we put a bond on the fountain?

>> well, there's no way this can be redone. >> right. i'm afraid it will get lost mar make sure it doesn't get lost >> basically, it's all one piece and it bonds together it looks like you're going to pick it up. >> commissioner hyland the last time i'm aware of a major project building was approved with the stipulation that it certain parts of it be take care of it was the yes, ma'am porm and that ended up costing the project several millions of dollars. >> that was retroactive.

>> it took a lawsuit. is there that any chance? >> we have a motion on the floor if we could reread or rope the friendly amendments please. >> , of course, commissioners there's a motion and second on the floor that was amended for the sponsor to work closely with the family and work sneflly with the fountain to have a sensitive plan for the movement and it's restorati restoration. submitted >> oh, absolutely to the department. >> shall i call the question? >> you mean the roll. >> yes. >> on that motion then

commissioners commissioner hyland. ass >> as much as i like the construction. >> commissioner matsuda. i'm going to say yes, but i have a concern about the legislation >> commissioner pearlman. >> i've been fretting over this for days and days i'll vote yes. >> commissioner wolfram and president hasz. so moved, commissioners, that passes 6 to one with commissioner hyland voting against. commissioners that places you on item 10 for case 2013 at 845 montgomery street for certificate of appropriateness. if people who are leaving thegr.

>> commissioner. you left off open your regular calendar for case 2013 at 845 montgomery street request for a certificate of appropriate. good afternoon, commissioners. kelly department staff. the project before you is a request for the certificate of appropriateness for 845 montgomery street a building within the jackson square project of the planning code. it was constricted in 1910 and historically is known also the hotel ervin is a georgia style

brick building with windows on the second and third floors and contrary front on the federal reserve. it was constructed in 23408 the penthouse and cultivated in toil. the proposed project is for the jelling restoration and the recladding of the two story addition sporadic it includes the cleaning and putting a bring on the montgomery facade and the light walls and the rehabilitation of the would do windows and painting the walls and cleaning and painting the anniversary historic stole and planning i painting the gaud rails and in kind replacement of floor tiles and decks and

revolver and in kind of stabilization of railing and new flashing and many replacement of existing plate tile with the 23408 edition with the new compatible toil in a muted tile measuring 12 inch by 24 inch laying in a pattern in that finish to simulate nature stone. based on the spivengz and a correspondence with the design team it meets the standard for rehabilitation and proportions for article 10 for the following reasons. the proposal will address the requirements and in the 2008

addition for the proposal respects the character and a designing features and the landmark district. the architecture features of the building will be maintained and that replacement materials will not affect the overall this and the materials will match the material in design and texture and all new materials for the 2008 addition will be deafened as contrary all the rationed. based on those finding the department recommends approval of the project with the two issues. prior an example of the proposed combrout will be forwarded for