as maybe a 10 year plan, possibly, kind of the set apart module could expand to the south arcade, but that's more long time. >> just wondering why this wasn't one big --. >> commissioner hyland. >> how did the layout of the three or the five kiosks get determined and the rhythm in which they have been placed. >> jane to speak to this, but my understanding is we looked at the arcade and then placed them accordingly so it's kind of corresponds to the size of the arcade bay. >> i guess if you have 25 potential businesses that want them, that might answer the second question. how did you come up with five versus four? >> so they actually mirror the inside nave shops. if you took a mirror image from humphrey

slocum down to mackavoy ranch it's sort of continuing that bow art symmetry. >> these will be connected to those interior --. >> there is that potential. if one of the interior shops would like to open up the doors, like heath ceramics, they have a partnership with blue bottle coffee, oh, maybe heath would want to open up part of their door --. >> that would be the purpose of the doors between the two. >> also with regard to the sizing of the kiosks, i believe one. conditions was the back nave wall remain 50 percent open. so looking at the size of the bay, also with this requirement having a 50 percent back wall opening is kind of where we ended up with the planning of the layout of the

kiosks. >> also as i mentioned the two seating areas, we directed that those be at the north and south end to create this kind of public openness. >> commissioners, seeing no other ques, comments i will open up for public comment. any member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> hello, commissioners, this is desiree smith with the san francisco heritage. heritage did review the project at our issues committee meeting in september and provided some feedback to the project team in october and we're happy that some of our recommendations were included and overall we're very excited about this project. we think it's a great one and we also hope to see as a model for possible future replication in the south

arcade. thank you. >> any other member member of the public wish to speak? seeing none we will close public comment and bring it back to the commission. commissioner hyland. >> i'm in support of the project. i think that the kiosks are well done, i think the design of them will be appropriate, in keeping yet certainly contemporary and distinguishable. the one thought that i had was whether kiosk no. 4 could be slid over so that 3 and 4 were combined. there seems to be a rhythm in the arcade that this interrupts and it creates a little bit of noise behind the arcade that i think it was more symetrical with the layout of the arches and then this, then, would be mirrored, i would assume, on the south side. so therefore then what's going on behind the arches would have

some symmetry to it. the way it's laid out now it seems like there's a discontinent rhythm behind the arches. yeah, just move from the left, 4 so it's adjacent to 3. i think that would serve the program the same way. >> slide 3 over half a bay. >> one and 2 are on center with column line 6. if 3 and 4 are on center with column line 8, then that would create some symmetry. i personally question whether 5 is really appropriate, but i'm sure that it's rentable space so where it's at i guess would be fine. but it is behind the square arch and we don't really have an elevation that really studies this. the drawings are really nice but the closest to

an elevation is the 3-d kind of single point perspective. >> but with no arcade. >> right, and you can't really read how it looks in elevation. that would be my suggestion, i think. i mean i'm okay with 5 but i would suggest that 4 get moved over. >> yeah, the only comment i had was about the rhythm. i agree that the design of the kiosks are beautiful and i think will be a very nice addition to the building and it is a funny thing because you have, you know, the one kiosk that's in the square bay, the squared-off bay which is twice the width of the rhythm of the arched arcade and, you know, it's like a stack caught toe staccato thing. i don't know what the solution is, i don't know if you move forward 5 over and move 1 and 2 over and make 3 a little bigger, i don't know.

>> i think just moving 4 over to 3 would do it. >> then it's sort of funky, sort of hanging off into the arcade that's different. i was just struggling with the patterning and that's why i asked the question about the south. if this were mirrored on the south the same way, then it sort of makes sense because then it is symetrical. >> it doesn't have the same rhythm behind the arches. i don't know if that was studied or if there was an alternative. >> i'm sure, if you've been studying for two years i'm sure you've had alternate designs. >> i guess i'd make the motion of approving it with that recommendation, to move 4 over. >> if i might, on the language issue. >> we're advising. >> we would recommend that the

draft motion be revised so just sort of the very first page, the adoption and findings be revised to read as follows: review findings of compliance with the secretary of sbaer 84 standards for rehabilitation and with article 10 standards for the property located on lots 274 and 275 in assessor's block 2900 waterfront special use district subarea 1 and an 84j height and bulk district. then obviously you can add your recommendation in terms of the location of kiosk 4, in addition to the three recommendations we had for additional review of construction details. >> would you like to -- so

with that motion you are making, right, to the changes miss ovalle just stated and the comments commissioner hyland just stated. >> those conditions of approval then become recommendations. >> yes. >> commissioner johnck. >> i see what you are trying to achieve and i am in synch with it but i would be interested in knowing how this affects the function and use of the plan from the port and/or jane. how does that recommendation, i know it's a recommendation, but how would this affect your economic plan or your business plan? the objectives for the use of the space. the function, what does this do to you?

>> from the port's perspective if the eop is comfortable relocating we think that could work. i'll let them speak to what it does to their business plan and the leasing, but as i said earlier, the port wanted to maintain the two open seating areas and that somewhat influenced how we ended up with this sort of asymetrical layout. >> i think the other thing that we considered is also where we can do core drilling. you know, the building is built on hundreds and hundreds of pilings so there's a limitation of where some of the core drillings can occur but with your comments i think we can go back and look, i think moving 4 over to 3 is a strong possibility. i think we just look at -- i absolutely understand your concerns about how it doesn't really match some of the symmetry that's so apparent in the ferry building,

especially without the south side not having this happen, you know, simultaneously. >> thank you. my comment before we -- are you done? before we move on, my only comment, if we're going for symmetry to me it would be taking 5 and moving it all the way over to 3. however, as a restaurantur i love the extra large seating area toward the middle and activating the promenade because i know when you go by there you see people going in and out except on farmer's market day and the whole middle area feels dead. i actually, even though it may feel a little off because it's so tucked back in there i'm actually happy with the way it is. >> i think we're saying the same, president hasz. i'm suggesting that 4 slides over

so 3 and 4 are on center with column line 8, just like 2 and 3 are on line with column line 6. >> understood. great. and we have a motion, we don't have a second. >> second. >> thank you. >> commissioners, then on the motion to adopt a motion recommending approval with recommendations from staff as well as relocating kiosk 4 to be adjacent to or with kiosk 3, on that motion, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes. commissioner johns, yes. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner pearlman, yes. and president hasz, yes. that motion passes 6-0. >> seeing no further projects we will adjourn this meeting.

(meeting adjourned). .

>> good morning, everyone. san francisco budget & finance committee for november 5, 2014, my name isar