an eir because it's the only flower 34 the word that should be preserved but that didn't exclude the word landscape that little detail. >> commissioner hyland. >> yeah, so to that point actually, i that what's important to remind everyone why we wanted to bring this forward and this is those are projects that potentially the property owner is looking to depiction 9 building we're asked to review the craft eir that has one page as the preservation alternative that's not - it's a waste of our time quite honestly so i'm very supportive of this and i think the point is we need more information we need a presentation of the thought

behind the preservation alternative and we need the intent to have a discussion about that in my mind that's the primary purpose of the resolution facadeism i wasn't going to do that (laughter) this notion of the facade retention i wasn't familiar with 188 g bushy looked at on the golden maps i think the facade the vertical conditions and i don't know where this line is drawn from what i see from 1881 i think that project meets the standards with the horizon editions and the rear edition so if it meets the standards than the mitigation was less than significant so we wouldn't be

concerned about the project i personally have yet to see a vertical edition to a building that has retained the facade that i find worthy of going through that mess those projects give preservation a bad name we're being forced to keep it crap facade it's not the facade that is important it's the space behind the facade in my opinion the way in which we integrate those the entry of the ground floor space into the new design is that what is really important i think i don't have the exact language but i propose we include in item 6 on the second photograph but we can

demonstrate it and improve the overall ground floor space that contributes to the significance of that facade because otherwise there's no reason to keep it so. >> well, you're saying ground floor space let's take the pine street behind the other one they didn't build behind the building inspection only the facade was kept i'm trying to understand. >> there was another building; right? so the space and the one hundred and 10 foot deep auto shop is what makes that building significant now based on acceptable you know alternatives we can keep 10 or thirty feet but if we change that and keep

the facade no one will understand what happened behind the facade so the ability to incorporate that into the loading zone on that was a multi story building. >> in the interests of the recess. >> there's a recess piece of it. >> so incorporating it into the design we're keeping it i mean i don't want to be that explicit but it's one of the proposed examples. >> i have a slightly different take on it you know there are historic resources that or landmark buildings or historic landmark resources that are known for events that happened there i worked on the one that the names memorial quilt was there the building itself once again the building the spates behind it really is not

significant to the fact of what happened in that particular place that's a hard one relative to pine street where one of the buildings was a ate row for a short term and furniture store for most of its life therefore it's not an automobile building but the sign says so but that wasn't one it's hard to grasp this one i agree with you there is a facade building on fulsome street between 9th and 10th a protecting housing below market rate housing building a red brick facade that looks at paved into a modern apartment that building behind that i agree it

is not exactly what i consider the finest of architecture for our city it's a fine line between how much we define it and mr. fry said about the case by case basis where we get into the specifics of what makes sense relative to whato is what is the impact and the showroom itself is critical that's important to that particular project but may not be an overall part of a policy i think we're really getting very refined and detailed where policies should stay. >> you know in going back to what commissioner hyland said let's go back and think about the purpose. >> the information if the alternative. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> so i think what wear saying

it's been done people know it's been done we're saying this could come flofthin front of us and be approved. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i think the 5 m project was a good example of again why we want to have this policy because you know that was a massive project it is a massive project we got is a couple of weeks before there were like 5 historic resources and the staff it wasn't a presentation of the alternatives or any of that i really enclosure the part it is presented and there's a much broader public presentation of what the historic preservation

are so the public knows and give us more of a time and an easier way to comment on. >> commissioner johns. >> thank you commissioner hyland made an interesting observation that about the buildings on the pine street i think you said one of the important parts those are extremely deep lots and it occurred to me that maybe and there were instances when it is not very important that they were deep lots or what went on behind them but what's important the facade because it in some cases would suggest the character the touch and the feeling of the neighborhood which is no longer with us and i can envision instances where it might be highly

desirable to keep those things for that reason it is similar to a ideas of straights so keeping in mind what you mentioned about why we're going into this experience i think i also want to point out there's this other aspect to maintaining facades that i don't want to - >> commissioner wolfram. >> i have a question for staff when the planning commission states of an eir their certifying the design and the appearance of a project are they like the way the deems looks at or other spakdz of that are we mixing up something that's not related to an eir but more to the design of the project. >> that's correct commissioners generally a certification of an eir is fold by the entitlement

it go into much more detail about the design detail what you're referring to. >> for the facade retention in a way didn't relate it will have a significant impact not in terms of the significant impacts it is the same as a non-preservation alternative and more of a design issue that doesn't relate to the eir at all but relates to the design that is more input from the staff and wondering whether we think about the policy is a separate policy document that we set back to the planning department regarding the approval of the projects that have integrated our opinion about it whether or not there's this thing about the facade because it is not a historic resource

the sponsor can decide i did not want to keep the defrauding facade it has no virtual preservation it can have a facade but it didn't workout so its not lessening the environmental review. >> commissioners one thing i'm hearing based on our previous conversation about eir the department will be for removing this section the reason we excluded it was based on comments this commission has made about basically inadequate alternatives having the policy outlined will address the issue of the facade retention by having the policy we will be

able to get project sponsors that up front information weer expecting well flushed out and well-thought-out preservation preservation 90 percent of those include project retention it maybe redundant to call it awe out as a design issue not a ceqa issue just food for thought. >> on the facade retention 24 was specific because we confusion your demonstrating the building they heard demo so; right? a that's basically what that was there for a theory

behind let me know up front because it says demo officially didn't mean you taking up 9 whole thing a that's where that came from any know. >> commissioner hyland. >> prepping for this hearing i was concerned about the implicit approval of the project on fulsome when i a.d. horror when i drive by it i haven't seen the final design but the pine street project on the east side the planning commission actually encouraged the retention of the facade and has stated they think it improves the entire facade of

the project i believe that was the report back from the that's the east side i'm sorry west side the one down. >> it is east of van ness. >> yeah. >> south side of - >> they were not planning on retaining. >> they have a massing that's a similar scale of the historic - >> the point is that conversation that process provided a design that was more in keeping with the neighborhood ; right? so i don't know if that i guess i'm mixed up at this point. >> without it that exploration doesn't happen. >> no, it doesn't happen and to commissioner johnss point why i lean towards saving something

like on one of the m 5 project what is the character of that block if you go pine street the one on the west side one or two are saved and go across the street to it tower it overwhelms you and have anything saved hey those are only one stories that's why yeah. something that better than nothing. >> yeah. i want to raise an order about this discussion i think we should continue the discussion and hold even though hearing on the certificate the applicant is waiting to hear and or but i think or continue after that but my overall sense is maybe this policy that is an important discussion we need to

definitely continue this but an area this should be removed over and over the architecture heritage made recommendations, too, and i think my point of order to hold this discussion or continue it afterwards or have the staff bring back a new resolution i have marks all over this thing i'm not necessarily ready to approve it. >> we have a completely revised copy so the pun has not seen it. >> i move we continue this to the next hearing. >> and would we direct staff to include the landscape as well as the recommendations from heritage i find them all acceptable. >> certainly. >> and change the - >> the comments we made about clarifying the language.

>> commissioner hyland will be gone at the next meeting and how about the 118 of the which march. >> commissioners, i know it is probably too much to ask would you like to see the facade retention section revised or taken out of the polygamy direction will be appreciated. >> we'll have it left as is that's why we're having a meeting. >> we discussed some of the reasons to clarify it if it were to stay in (laughter). >> and we'll discuss whether or not to get rid of it (laughter). >> i love doing things twice. >> then one point of clarification on the edits commissioner hyland made a comment about excluding an exploration of the ground floor space is that an idiot the

commission wants to include. >> that's too much detail we're going to chop that section. >> a little bit more surgery. >> but this would be then useful in other forms so you don't know i don't think it will be waste. >> i want the exploration of what makes the facade important we can have a debate of that that is including it as a facade but the point is establishing the importance of the fade. >> right. >> not detailing specification in a policy state; right? >> okay. >> we'll include it in the discussion. >> so we have a motion on the floor and second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to continue this matter until march 4 or 18th okay.

>> on that motion to continue this matter to march 18 commissioner hyland arrest commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner pearlman commissioner wolfram and president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 7 excuse me. for case no. 2014 a at gardell jury this is a certificate of appropriateness. >> i have a disclosure the firm i work for has completed relevance a different work on gardell square and looking for the same owner and talked with the attorney i need to recuse myself if it's not the same project. >> thank you good afternoon, commissioners for the department staff a

certificate of appropriateness and has a national register with a scope of the work with the terrace plaza and the ground floor of the facade of the mustard building it includes the following replacement of existing paving with concrete pafrz american people a pedestal system and reposting the lawrence public concrete finish with a 67 inch band of light colored concrete and the corners at the north wall and the planter to reconfigure the planter to committed new walls of the east and south and to install a new concrete bench and new landscaping and reconfigure stairs and to provide new

handrails with integrated lighting after the ramps to install and incline list on a railing to replace angle store bays that are from the ground floor of the mustard building and remove paint of the mustard building and to clad the existing under side of the second-story metal terrace with stucco and to install canvas pursue the staffing finds the recommendation will be in con forms and the concert of interior the work is comparable and clearly dlaechd and replaced the fabric to matching themes and incorporate a new paving

system and replace non-historic features and will preserve the historic character of the location the staff review of the document as noted it ongoing as noted in our case report and draft motion staff recommends several conditions of approval for the finishes of this project subject to the storefront and metal handrails and refer to the updated the document to make sure those teachers features and materials are comparable with the character and fine features of that property staff recommendations condition of approvals rewarding the specifications and review of the make ups of the paint remove from the mustard building and for additional documents of the paving prior to its removal in

public comments have been received since packets were summit and the staff recommends approval that concludes my presentation. unless there's questions and the project sponsor is here with a presentation as well thank you. >> when she starts speaking into the microphone sfgovtv will put up our presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners aim alicia and the project also part of the design team a jamestown developer and

landscaper architect for the storefront at the mustard building daily is the nexus that connects the floor and at the russian hill and the recreation area and the san francisco bay area, however it has been that in decline and have disrepair the tenant occupancy is 50 percent it's one of the most historical and architecturally significant landmarks the property was acquired by james it up and will receive significant capital investments with the fabric of san francisco that is sensitive improvements that wish the subject character of the property 3 main periods that gives the square the first the

construction of the pine hill that was constructed in 1958 percent the chocolate company began in 1953 and in the 19060s with the gardell square it's a looked and in 19982 was on the register of historic places this is actually, i should - >> this is a site plan that shows the scope of work will occur basically at the terrace plaza and include the storefront replacement of the mustard building and excludes the replacement of the angle storefront enclosures the replacement of incompatible 1484 replacements at the plaza and the reconfiguration of the plaza more comparable with the design and also an navigation of a i

think incline lift that allows the public to connect to the plazas in a easier way and the existing pavement to address the water inrefrigerates issues those are the non-storefront issues the main thing to notice the storefronts are aged and introduced a new element to the terrace plaza and as people's 3 last year mentioned the paint at the facade it was not originally painted so that's under consideration this is a plan of the proposed replacement of the mustard building replacing with new it storefront that are similar size but straight side walls and not be slanted this misinforms in

the plans the existing disreplacement the same size and this is an elevation of the proposed facade? the sophisticating and they show the doors in a closed position the idea there will be sliding doors that open up to allow the outdoors into the inside and ace mentioned before we'll be working with staff on the development of the details for the storefronts the storefronts is part of the package we've submitted for the guidelines we'll be working with them through that and this elevation shows the proposed storefronts and those are the images of a couple of slides that shows we'll work with planning to do this o those

are shots of the existing condition of the plaza are the area with the red brick from the 1980s it was introduced in 80s was not oriental you'll u you'll notice at the lower left planter understandably features were introduced in the 80s and the two photos on the right hand are showing the existing conditions that is allowing water to go into the space below this is the original landscape plan it included a grid pattern that 0 were architecture features and had a slab of concrete and the terrace had two primary levels one was 5 feet of the plaza and two feet above the

intermediate level the alternatives included raising the northern part of the plaza to flush it was all one level and they kept the grid but the bands of the grid were staggered and like i mentioned before they had several features they introduced elements also they reconfigured the planter and removed the seating that was provided initially. >> our main goal to make the necessary repairs to the plaza by addressing the water interrogation we wanted to bring back the configuration of the 180's plan and from the fountain to the terrace plaza we said to have comparable materials so this plan we've been working with planning and has a modified it we think this is more

compatible things that have changed we'll have a grid paper that aligns with the course concrete at the bands in the field and we will remove aged features and reintroduce the seating at the planter and basically make it simpler and more assessable we have bryan of h o k that will talk about the details of the project. >> thank you, alicia and thank you, commissioners i'm going to. >> the time to walk through the feature in a little bit more details the image is the original decline from 1984 alternatives there's a lot of odd ge