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, thei didnt 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 ofi 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. Ill ask the commissioners tothe 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 thisthe 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 elementthis is a signaturethis 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 thatthe whole idea about having lessi 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. Im 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 isthe 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 dont 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 doesnt 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 didnt 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 reallyfits 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 ismaking it thinner than now doesnt 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 andyep. We can move on. Thank you very much. Very good commissioners. That places us on item 7. For case number 2011. 0167. Coa02 at jones street. This is a request for certificate of appropriateness motion to recuse commissioner pearlman ill 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 visit and correspondence the [inaudible] rehabilitation and provision of article 10 for the following reasons. The proposal is compatible with the character defining feature thofz land mark building and property, the architectural character will be maintained, the proposed work will not remove damage or destroy original qualities or character of the original historic building. The new wheelchair lift will not attach to the building and be minimally visible from the public and the proposed roof deck ecpansion will have a simple design that is compatible with the building and not visible from the public right away. Based on these findings the Department Recommends approval of the project with the following conditions, prior to issuance of the architectural addendsm the following requires review by Planning Department preerfbivation staff. One, samples of base [inaudible] east and west elevation where grade is lowered and 2, final details of the new [inaudible] above new accessible basement entrances. The department received 2 public inquirys for General Information about the proposed project one from the San Francisco beautiful inquiring about accessible entrance that basement level and the second is regarding how one submits a letter of support for this pauj eblth. The project sponsor is here and prepared a short preezentation of the work and im available for questions and this concludes my presentation thank you would the project sponsor like to come forward . You have 10 minutes. Or less if you so choose. Once you start speaking the sfgov will switch to the the slides my name is christopher [inaudible] principle for preservation consulting. Been working on this project for about 5 years at this point so it is a baby of mine. Ill keep my remarks pretty short because i want to give the project sponsor a chance to work through detail thofz proposed changes to the project originally approved in 2012. [inaudible] is located at 1 jones street at the intersection of jones mu calster and market street. It sits in a c 3 g Zoning District and [inaudible] it is also contribute today the midmarket and theater district and city land mark number 130. [inaudible] designed in 1889 by pices and more [inaudible] it was built in 1892 and located 2 blocks from where the city rr was located and housed law offices of tobeen and tobeen. It was the cities first bozart building and designed 4 years before the 1893 columbian expedition so this building was one of a kind. Original 60 by 129 square foot was enlarged in 1905 to cover inentire lot. Detail was identical to the original structure. 1906 the building combusted when a quake came through the area burning the building. The contents of the vault survived and the exterior was undamaged. [inaudible] the bank and tobeen and tobeen muchbed back in in 1907. The bank [inaudible] and the penthouse addition was added in 35. The original certificate of appropriateness was approved december 5, 2012. [inaudible] project rehabilitation the building to meet current life safety and accessibility codes and make it suitable for commercial use including a full seismic upgrade. The proposed changes to had coa include changes made to improve accessibility and also to make change tooz the roof top penthouse which is really not visible from surrounding streets. With that ill turn it to nijeal black to tell you more about the project. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is nijeal black and im the representative for the project sponsor. I would thrike thank chris and kelly for the time and thunk for the time to present. Ill walk you through the remainder of the presentation looking in more detail not too much fl several items we have on the c och a. The first is lowering of the floor. New ada lift in the west alley and enlarging all the roof deck of the penthouse and window changes to the penthouse. The first slide illustrates the ada access. There are 2 mean tooz the basement. You can see on the left of the slide it shows the proposed west alley and on the right hand side shows the jones light well and see the [inaudible] lift there also. So, first thing i would like to talk about, the jones street light well. This light well is accessible on jones street. This stair is to remain as it is. The scope is to lower the floor in the light well by appreciately 21 inches and to add 3 concrete risers to make up the difference. There we arein doing that we lower the light well floor over a short distance and have to rethe existing door and add a new door to close the gap above. Lowering the light well will not effect any of the historic materials andthat are already on the side of the building. We will be exposing the brick vunene below and adding a new cast stone base that will consist of a [inaudible] at the top and a straight face on the cast stone that will match the existing granite in texture and color. It will be in the [inaudible] and the straight plain. Just one more note, this slide actually details the ada lift that is shown in the light well. Previously approved on the coa. It is now a ada lift and again the purpose here is to get access into had basement from the jones street site. Looking now at the next slide, the west alley, the top drawing shows the previously approved west alley design. What we propose with this application is to lower again the depressed well area in the west alley. We are again similarly to on the jones street side we will excowivate about 2 foot 10 of the depressed well area here and we are going to be exposing some of the brick vu92 near below the existing granite base so we are going to match that back. Again the purpose of this is to improve and achieve ada accessibility. We will remove the original door and replace with a compatible steal door with a [inaudible] to close the gap. This slide shows the ada lift to be added on the side. This is minimally visible from the public and building interior. Both the ada lift on either side will be not connected to the building, they will be seft supporting and mostly of steal frame with acrylic or [inaudible] glass panels to decrease the visibility. The next slide here details the west alley door and you can see how the proposed shows a door similar to the original. This shows the west alley and the arrow indicates the door. The next slide on the ajendsa is to expand the roof deck at the pentouz on the roof. The green area is the deck expansion. We are proposing to expand the deck to the west 17 foot 10 and the deck rill not be moved any further south. The line of the deck wont be visible from the street so the deck materials will match those previous approved in the coa and the gaurdrails. The next slide shows a line of site diagram that shows the view from the opposite block. The [inaudible] hotel looking at the deck. You have to be 420 feet away to see the deck. The southern most line of the deck was approved in the original coa. Next we are proposing this slide again shows the expansion thof roof deck to the west on the proposed diagram on the bottom of the slide. What this also shows is the 3 small windows on theif you look at the lower diagram, 3 windows that are infill windows. So the window changes to the penthouse room is the next item. We are proposing to lowerthere were original changes to the windows and we propose to lower one of the windows on the elevation on the north end and to also add the 3 new windows which you can see on the top slide there. Then again the next slide shows the proposed change to the penthouse room and expanding the lobby window and adding a winnow in the [inaudible] and adding a vent grill are for the elevator shaft. These can not be seen from the street right away. The next slide just shows 3 photos which you can review. The windows one on the bottom left shows the interior and the top right shows the window on the right is a exist door and the window on the left is lower today the floor. The picture on the baultm right shows the east side of the existing penthouse where the new window is to be add today the lobby. Im basically over time but would like to turn it over to q and a thank you very much. I have a question for planning staff. Would the previous conditions of approval, the intentwe are adopting a new coa but there were numerous conditions in the previous coa and those are still in tact . Yes that is correct and we have work would the project sponsor in making sure those conditions have been met okay thank you very much. Commissioners any questions before we go to Public Comment . I have a question, the handy cap lift is it open with a railing . It has like a little door. It was hard to tell what the top of the lift looks like because the pictures in the package had different lefts that were much taller. The section onthe section that you provide on a 15 is quite different than your previous Cross Section in which you showed the sky light in the lift and in this one the sky light is no longer shown. Yes if you can explaini couldnt tell what the lift would look like absolutely. The jones street east light well was the sky light over the light well which i failed to mention what is included. Again, the sky light will shorten the ada lift and on the norlth end of the lith well. The one on the jones street is seft supportedthat is like a metal frame with acrileic or structural panels between to minima lael disrupt the view from behind. A person access from the north end of the light well, there is a small metal platform, they enter the lift and go down to the light well from there what you would see is the lift with a railing around it . Yes at the top both the lifts have open tops so you dont see a shaft way proitudeing or anything protruding above the gaurd rail what keep said people from getting on the lift . Where the original gaurd rail was a gate will be returned at the north end which is where access of the lift is obtained thank you very much. Any other questions . Seeing none we move to Public Comment. Anybody in the public wish to comment on this item . If so come forward and youll have 3 minutes. Hello Shelly Johnson and im a [inaudible] player and i have been [inaudible] highlight the foundations and working with somebody that does foundations and they are kind of tricky, but i think the highlights in the [inaudible]