iletm 6. downtown ferry terminal expansion >> rich [inaudible] department staff and i'm joined from [inaudible] and port of san francisco as well as their project team. request and comment [inaudible] 3 new ferry [inaudible] and the embarcadero plaza which are part of the down town ferry terminal expansion. the project sponsor completed the [inaudible] ajaist tonight to the port of san francisco embarcadero national registry historic district and ferry building and [inaudible] on april 25, 2015 the historic preservation commission reviewed the project and documented their opinion which is provided to you in it packets. the department requests review and requestion regarding the compatibility of the current design and

resources which include the embark dairy historic district. over all the department is in large support of the design. we do have commentary on the [inaudible] refinement of the design of these panel tooz better integrate them with the surrounding [inaudible] a more slender profile the for a the new supporting posts and columns and provide justification for compatibility of materials with the surrounding land marks. the project sponsor repaired a short presentation as well as provide additional updates sinss the last time the architectural review committee reviewed the presentation. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions >> could the sponsor come

forward and if you can fit it all in 10 minutes >> will do and thank you for the opportunity to present today. mike [inaudible] project manager for san francisco ferry terminal expansion project. i'm join by [inaudible] i'm going to keep things brief here and give plenty of time for the architect to walk through the presentation. in 2013 we presented a master plan to the arc and ptc and that project included a scheme to build up to 3 new ferry terminals as well as land site improvement in the north and south basin of the ferry terminal. the goals at that point are the same as the goals today and hat is to to acamidate a grouth in the demand for the existing ferry service at the ferry terminal, provide the capacity for new ferry services planned by

[inaudible] and enhance [inaudible] and city of san francisco to respond in the event of a emergency. [inaudible] farmers market, public access as well as historic district. since the presentation the weety board [inaudible] a eir. following that action the board also took a action to release fund{authorize staff to pursue construction of the south basin improvement proposed as part of the master plan. last month the project was [inaudible] design review board as well as port of san francisco advisory committee and look forward to offering the [inaudible] on that note i would like to introduce the project architect

[inaudible] who will walk through the updated design work for the south basin. [inaudible] my self and the rest of the team are available for questions following the presentation. >> thank you mike. i would also like to mention [inaudible] from page [inaudible] is here and both jay [inaudible] have been involved in the project right from the begin{are also available to answer questions as well as bonny fisher from [inaudible] design group. figure how to change slides here. mike mentioned the overall plan, the overall concept plan that included the north and south basin. really what is decided in terms of moving ahead for implementation is pursue the ferry terminal expansion in the south basin. the existing conditions in the south basin area, the pier 2 is

intended to be demolished as part of the projuct and the [inaudible] well be demolished and this demolish the old pier 2 and maintain the agriculture building and the apron that is ipt grl to the construction of the building as well as the original [inaudible] also in addition to these aspects, page and turnbull put together original assemblies of how the area has changed over time and think we included them to do. one of the important considerations has always been the continuity and linkages this area had with the ferry building in terms of creating additional opportunities for ferry service and the idea of a

conduction and linkage is a very important other aspect of not only maintaining the national landmark buildings but the reinstatement of that connection as well. activity linkages are a important part of the whole project. there are 3 basic factors that exist today that probably didn't exist as much historically. one is sea level rise. basically our requirement is to have not only the ferry terminal facilities but all the public access areas meet at least the 50 year life of the facility and that is about 3 feet above the existing grade of the area and then to be able to provide an adaptive response to 2100 so the design addresses

that aspect. and by the way, you know that the agriculture building floods even at that point and that will ultimately have to be respond toog the same factors but it not a part of this project we have taken all that into account in coming up with a scheme. there is another aspect maybe a little harder to see, but we have a sea wall in this area and the sea wall traverses the agriculture building and this area. the port is studying the effect of a major seismic event on the sea wall and one thof things we and they have already concluded is movement in the sea wall has to be taken into account in terms of the construction of the public access areas in this project. the other aspect is really dealing with the kind of

treatment of storm water. we cannot do conventional bioretention here. we are a pile supported structure that has to address sea level rise so we have a number and multipronged aprauch to the way storm water is dealt. some of those have physical ram fiication squz others have more operational ramifications. those 3 aspects were also key to the project and to the the development of the plan you see before you and in your materials involved some after the bcdc and [inaudible] presentation and that was also included in the material and the model any time you want to look at it is update today reflect the currents plan which incorporates those comment. the stepped area adjacent to the the project which is going to create a variety of seating opportunities for people that

really keeps the linkages between all the activities present. this is just showing how it would be right in front of the agriculture building. we do have 3 gates, gate e exists now and we are adding 2 more and we are proposing adding 2 canpies between e and f and another one between f and g much smaller than what we had aoriginally shown in previous proposals. it is important to keep a couple things in mind, the canopies were never intend today provide full weather protection. it is just to alleviate the conditions and make it more attractive. the other thing i would point out is by having the canopy we eliminate vertical elements like lighting or signage can be

incorporated as well. we did studies of solar access which we were asked to look at and they tend to perform quite adequately but we were also asked to look at wind driven rain and a com [inaudible] did an analysis of the canopies and found that even under the worst conditions they were 70 percent available at ground plane in terms of giving protection. again, we are not trying to-it is like a parasol. we want a little protection, but we also want to emphasize the historic linkage between the promenade at the ferry building side and in this area as well. some of the--we did propose a combination of [inaudible] and

glass frit very similar to the academy of sciences integrated into the glass. we don't have to do that, but we thought it was a important aspect of reflecting sustainability and generating actually enough electricity to provide the power requirements for the lighting for the area. second daerl we felt they would create a more for giving environment in terms of keeping the area clear. we will as suggested by staff look at making these asin the as possible. there is no question, we would totally endorse that aspect and as long as we can get the engineers to justify it, we are going to do that very definitely and we

would look for your additional comments in this aspect. thank you >> thank you. commissioners do you have questions about the presentations? commissioner johnck >> i don't have a question, i would just like to make a comment that is, i found the drawings the chronological drawings with what had been in the past to be very very helpful and i thank you for who ever did it. >> [inaudible] >> i thought they were very helpful and i appreciate them. >> other questions >> i have one question. can you speak about what the program will be for the plaza? and also whether there will be lighting. it seems like a large space and curious how it will be used. it is [inaudible] during the farmers

market-when the farmers market is not there is a wind swept unutileized space >> good question. i could have gone into more depth on this. i think the notion of the plaza is several fold. first of all, particularly because of the requirements of preventing pollution in storm water there will be no permission to have vehicles on the plaza. that is a operational requirements. in addition we are intended to have it be a no smoking area. these are all elements that contribute to pollution of storm water. second, the plaza is need frd public access and for emergency response. we did a very thorough analysis of the need to evacuate and considering the vessel capacity, theplaza area gives us the kind of space which directly adjacent to the 3

terminals that would be needed in case of emergency response requirement is to assemble large groups of people whether coming in or going out. in terms of activities, certainly it will be available for activities and events. it will be available for the ferry passengers in the area if they choose to queue in the plaza or the other portions like the promenade area directly adjacent and in the canopied area, but that program is subject to a typical program. it could be an extension of the farmers market. we are looking at theplaza and the promenade area as being the kind of catalyst that would make financial investment in the preservation and adapted use of the agriculture building much

more feasible and we think the kind of changes in the environment are going to be a very positive effect. by the way, not unlike the positive effect that earlier ferry terminals did for the ferry building and all the plaza area improvements that went along with that >> the no vehicle requirement, the farmers wouldn't be able to bring trucks there. >> no they would not >> any other questions. >> thank you very much. sorry, commissioner hyland >> i just had a question on the status of the north basin. could we get a update? >> it is not currently in the project which is moving to implementation. maybe as a future time it may. i think mike could respond to that better. >> just one other thing to mention on the north basin in response to had arc and [inaudible] the master plan

that went in2450 environment. we did eliminate the canopy along gate b so if and when the north basin improvements go forward that is no longer a component of the project. in terms of when they go forward, it is contingent on a much more robust expansion of [inaudible] that is currently envisioned so there is no fundsing available for it now and no immediate plans to go forward >> the final design would come back before us? >> we would return to all the stake holders that commented on the master plan before advancing the north basin >> thank you >> i do have a question >> go ahead >> i did notice on the plan that you have in the model there is the promenade and it does say here port of san

francisco promenade not part of the project >> yes, the-i didn't completely answer another question so this gives a me a opportunity. there was a discussion for having what was called the south bay side promenade on the existing bart platform if you will and that project is part of what the port is pursuing separately with the stakeholders in that area. it is something we needed to be compatible with but is not a part of this project, but it is being pursued by the port separately to create a better access point for the entire area. part of-i forgot the part on lighting that you had asked. we have looked at light

levels. we do not have and do not propose any lighting in the plaza itself. we do propose linear light fixtures that are integrated very carefully with the canopies and we have also wall lights in the areas of grayed transition. the lighting along the future from nod and along the embarcadero are quite adequate and the light levels do not require additional lighting. we preferred not having more vertical elements anyway in that area. the final thing is maybe on the activity program, i would mention that the plaza does allow activity to come directly to had embarcadero not unlike what happens in front of the ferry building but this is a major piece of connection that can also be made and

allows opportunity in a very sunny area for just being out in the open. >> thank you. >> at this time we will take public comment. a member of the public wish to comments on this item? seeing and hearing none close public comment and bring it back to the commission. i'll ask the commissioners to-the department is looking for comments on the compatibility of the new construction with adjacent resources including terminal [inaudible] the canopy squz the plaza and they also made their own recommendations. commissioner johnck >> well, i want to preface my comments on the historic preservation commission by saying that i think you are all aware that this-the particular designer and architect has a

long standing reputation for iconic design and particularly the ferry canopies and the evolution back to the future so to speak of the ferry system in san francisco. i think what has been done in the past and the current ferry access ways has been truly beautiful and in great symmetry. also i want to say i think the design element-this is a signature-this particular design for the canopies is already been a signature iconic design, so the other point i want to make is i think the design is a key element of the function and the purpose for this project, which is really to expand ferry transportation in the city. so, i appreciate the opportunity here to discuss

its relationship to us and think overall i highly endorse the project in all 3 categories that the staff has asked us to comment on. i think the symmetry is greatly improved and i want to just say something more about the canopies and the issue of photovoltayics. to me, what we are really saying here with this design or why i particularly appreciate it is this is a really beacon for transportation sustainability. it will be highly visible to the community, to the region as folks are becoming more attach today the water and we a building more of a connection and linkage to the water, so i think that-the whole idea about

having less-i know one idea is to make these thinner and i can appreciate that but not so concerned about that but i think staff and [inaudible] said he will be looking at making them thinner and that is fine, but i do think the whole idea of it is particularly striking and beautiful and quite a beacon. i'm supportive of the project as it stands >> commissioner pearlman >> thank you. i am very supportive as well. i was disappointed to see the note about the promenade because i think the design of the prauza and promenade together works so well and the prospect that the plaza might end up there in the promenade may not is disappointing because i think they should both be there. i also think it is-the mareners

star of course is such a obvious but welcome pattern on the grounds there given we are next to the bay and this is where the shipping and the port is. also the notion of it i appreciate that with 3 terminals the volume of traffic will be quite significant so i amadgeen people walking through thatplaza in all different directions and that is something that is accomplishable by its design and layout. i also appreciate the water side of the plaza is squared to align with the face of the ferry building and the back of the agriculture building. i think that is a good change and is more related to what is there now. in terms of the canopies, i don't know

about the thinning of the structure. i love what is on the academy of fine arts, but what works is it is attached to the building on one side so the in theness of the support is much less necessary to hold up to the whole thing, it is to hold one edge. these are symmetrical and they are only 4 columns holding this up, the thinner those are, unless you reduce the weight of the structure of the canopy i think it will look spindley and think they should look substantial number. the embrella [inaudible] compare today thumount of area it covers and i think that would be something

that in terms of design if you are looking to in the out the columns that then the cross beam structure, all of it should appear much more light weight so it is consistent throughout. the [inaudible] i think is a great idea. anything that can run itself from a energy standpoint is of course the correct and obvious thing to do. i think that is most of my comments. >> thank you. any other comments? commissioner hasz >> i would agree with the commissioner that thinning down the columns doesn't really change much for me. >> commissioner johns >> thank you, on the thickness or in theness of the column there is a real beefy building right there and it is a solid

building and i agree with commissioner comments. i didn't think it was a particularly vuchiacy to in the the columns just to have in the columns particularly when you have the ferry building and that strength in the proximity. i think it would be more compatible if there was something that looked like it was strong. the rest of the design and think is really really-fits in w the surrounding area in the nicest possible way. >> it sounds like there is general consensus the project is compatible and also that unless i hear otherwise that the in the in theness is-making it thinner than now doesn't seem to be a necessary study and there was also a comment

about a more solid termination from the canopy. i believe that would be rather than a glazed edge >> this >> yes, there would be a solid termination. anybody feel strongly about that or want to comment on that? i see general sense of compatibility with the design and--yep. we can move on. thank you very much. >> very good commissioners. that places us on item 7. for case number 2011.0167. coa-02 at jones street. this is a request for certificate of appropriateness >> motion to recuse commissioner pearlman >> i'll motion to recuse commissioner pearlman

>> commissioner hasz, yes >> johnck, yes. johns, yes >> that motion passes unanimously. >> good afternoon commissioners. kelly wong department staff. the project brf you is request for certificate of appropriateness for 1 jones street under article 10 of the planning code. the subject building was constructed in 1892 and [inaudible] repair in 1906 and 07 based on design [inaudible] and known as the [inaudible] one jones street is a granite 2 story over partially exposed

basement building with 2 primary facades featuring corinthian columns [inaudible] domed retunda at the south east corner and roof penthouse. as you know, the commission had previously approved a certificate of appreciateness case number 2011 [inaudible] at the november 6, 2011 hear frg the rehabilitation of the subject landmark building and property including a full building seismic upgrade, compliance with fire and safety codes and accessibility up grades associate would a new assembly use. please note the motion of the previous [inaudible] is included in your packet for reference. the proposed project for this c of a is for additional work including exterior rehabilitation and revision to

the previous c of a specifically the proposal includes lower exterior grade of east and west elevations, specifically at the west alley and east light well to provide for new accessible building entrances, lowering of existing doors and installation of new [inaudible] above. installation of one new exterior wheelchair lift at the west exist alley and not at the east light well as outlined in the project discripshz in the ajnda and notice. alteration of existing window opening on roof penthouse and introduction of one new vent and opening and enlargement of a previously approved roof deck by 277 square feet. the roof deck was approved under the previous [inaudible] site