been pretty extensively altered over time. presidentgoh: thank you. hoye thank you. note director goldstein: is there any public comment? >> i want to address this misconception about 103 feet and that they could have gone further but that they stepped back as if they were altruistic. as i said in my original presentation, they cannot go any closer because they are at 18-1 far.

they cannot get another square foot on this property. if they had decided to take their advantage to go closer, which they certainly could have, the upper portions of the building would have to be set back a lot more. in fact, we would probably like that a lot more, because then they would have the mechanical protrusion. i also want to address the, and that they did not go this -- did not go as high as they could. the building is already above us. we will be perfectly fine in this building was set back properly and actually what higher. it would not be that tall, but it would be taller. again, they have chosen not to do this because they do not like the economics of that building,

so we're being asked to bear the brunt, and as was said, on four or five occasions it is not the back of our building, and it is right in our face, in approaching 7.5 to 8 feet into a 15 foot setback. the requirements are to set it back, it is encroaching even more. s so they just did not designed to be nice. they have designed this very carefully to take the vantage of every square foot -- take advantage of every square foot. that is a recorded document. i think he said it was not a record and document and that they did not have to worry about it. it is a recorded document. if you read this document, that

has been a concern from day one. that is back when it was constructed. the concern was this 19 dozen square foot sort of orphan parcel, if you're going to build something bigger year sought cutbacks -- something bigger here, you have got to set it back. i do not think the 1967 agreement has been satisfactorily addressed. i do not think they can ignore it. " i hope you understand the issue with the setbacks. i am happy to answer any questions. commissioner peterson: no one is

saying that builders are optimistic, but i nder why you want this about? we do what you want this about? you would rather have a taller building but more of a setback? it may be set back by 3 feet. >> we appreciate that apparently they are making efforts to reduce the encroachment, but i would answer that a couple of ways. number one, i think you just hit on a very key component of an analysis of these kinds of exceptions. you said, "well, maybe it is individual." that is basically the only thing that kids looked at here. there is the public access from mission street between the buildings, the building that is there now, with another public plaza on the other side of 50 beale. you will have the public walking through the access, and this

will be right over their heads. planning to the position that this would not get any visual impact. i think this is an appearance of an impact. i think if you read our submission, you will see. what does that even mean? what criteria was used? and then there is the visual impact to our building. we think that the planning code is there for a reason. certainly, exceptions are granted, but wait a minute. you are going to give someone an exception to the planning code that is-we going to impact my property. that is not what they are for. whether we're talking about an exception or a variance. it has to be determined that it will not have a negative impact.

then you of the adjacent property owner, one saying that it will impact our views, it will probably impact what we can get. the property has been there. let's say they cannot bring it back all of the way. they cannot bring it back all of the way. this was just to set the building back. they still meet the 15-vote sent back. they can decide to go higher. they can still give the amount of square footage of this. they can still have their 18 to 1 far. it was a code conforming

building, and he said it was. we have a difference of opinion. this did not go any higher than this building. it also significantly cut into this. .a conforming building would be one that maintained the square footage. a conforming building would be one that maintained their square footage. they would just have to go higher. they would have to set the building back. that was never studied. commissioner hwang: i have to interrupt you. the part that i want to get clarification on, as i understand it, and i could be misunderstanding it, it could be right up to the property line. is that correct? other than the 60 you have on the building? >> i am sorry. i do not know from the top of my

head. commissioner hwang: what you are saying is that you would prefer that. you would prefer them going.com -- going there? >> i was just extemporaneously saying that we may come to a conclusion that that was a better designed for us and that because of that the setback on the upper floors -- commissioner hwang: can you address coming in late with these discussions? >> it was my understanding that

they had a meeting. the design has not been changed or modulated. we thought there were deficiencies with the alternatives. we have for months been actively involved. commissioner garcia: if it were, in order to get the same far, go seven stories high air compaq and let's say it is 17 stories higher, one, you would lose the passageway.

>> if you look at all of the submissions, it basically goes all of the way up. it would potentially have a lesser impact. koran as opposed to a 375 ft. building that goes straight up. vice president garcia: it seems at certain times of the year, given the inclination of the sun, it would have a greater effect. >> i suppose that is possible. we have not undertaken all of the studies. we do not know how high a the developer would choose to go. vice president garcia: thank

you. president goh: thank you. >> thank you. >> once again, we as developers have to build a building that works. we have to build a floor plate that people, tenants in this marketplace, would want to rent. if we were to go higher, nothing about the core of that building is going to change. so as you go up and the building floor plate gets smaller, there is not enough feet on those forced to be attractive to any tenant at all. that is why the building is designed the way it is and carefully designed.

let me address the bulk exceptions for a moment. et there was a planning department sheet that shows exceptions that have been granted and this shows buildings get both exceptions, which really does not say that much about our building. and this goes up, by the way. that number gets to be a higher percentage. virtually every high-rise building in san francisco has gotten a bulk exception.

there have been 15 code changes. for very good reasons. thank you. director goldstein: just a couple of points i want to touch upon and clarify.

on that point, no, it would not. they are actually over their maximum. they would not under the current planning could be able to expand that building. piniella also wanted to touch upon the 1967 letter that has been cited. it is a letter that if any thing occurs to be nothing more than a private agreement. it does not appear in any of our records as a condition of planning approve it for 50 beale or any other -- as a condition of planning approval. i am available for any of the questions. president goh: thank you.

director goldstein: commissioners, the matter is yours. commissioner fung: let me ask you my fellow commissioners for their indulgence, because i might be quite long. you know, this is only the second time that the 309 has been appealed to this board on exceptions, and as i indicated at the previous time, i disagreed with the department to a certain extent, and i would like to explain why, first based on some historical notes. when i first joined the board, it was the very first office

allocation program, and at that time, the marketplace and therefore the corresponding designs reflected much larger footprints, and when we went through those, every one of those appealed to the board of appeals, they brought the caseloads, and the timing was like 12 boxes to hear the appeals. so many aspects of what has been brought out today were not part of criteria, and then the criteria started to change it. it was later on that the issue of the economic or marketplace bye-bye win was introduced as

part of that, and an urban design wise, it was interesting, too, because based -- it was later on that issue of the economic or marketplace vibrancy was introduced as part of that. the idea was to create multiple planes but also to have other things. then when i went to planning, i thought it was an opportunity for me to participate in how our skyline was developing, and i remember having multiple conversations with mr. heartland about our skyline. there was a recession, so there were not many opportunities for us to pontificate upon not only

urban design issues but in terms of the design of major projects. i had always felt that the issues related to bulk, related to how we handle the design of our larger core buildings in the central district was misguided in the sense that larger floor plates was desirable. we wound up with a lot of boxy buildings. the aggregation, of course, a property in our city was not very easy, so therefore, the ability to aggregate and look at how you can sculpt the facilities was limited and then

when we actually got into some of the things that have changed within the planning department as to how they handle the setbacks, they have made a number of efforts to incorporate better concepts for what creates a better boat -- bulk and separation. however, i do not think they go far enough, so then we end up with the design in this instance that does not necessarily address those particular issues. they do reflect a turn in terms of aesthetics, which we have seen in recent times to a more modernist type of approach. that is my personal opinion. and it is not necessarily what will drive my decision in this instance.

i think that what i need to see here is how the planning commission discussed and looked at the issues of the bulk related to the separation of powers and to see whether they fully benefit. whether i agree with it or not i do nothing really comes into play, so therefore, i would like to see that. i do not think the the findings necessary reflect the amount of discussion or analysis, and therefore, i would like to see if not tapes or to seek some transcripts of what they discussed on those two specific exceptions.

present goh: so a continuance is needed in your view in order to see the material? -- president goh: -- commissioner fung: only in my opinion. president goh: anyone? vice president garcia: the papers have been presented for the decision we have to make. i feel adequately informed. i feel that the issues that play into this, having to do with some of the things that were mentioned, like the fact that the compensatory things given in order to get something else, the fact that the bottom below 103

is in and not all of the way out to where it could be, it gives some -- the exception is going to be given for what happens above that. i guess i am thinking, if i were at 50 beale and looking out of a window, the difference of a co- compliant building is not enough to go through much more vetting or much more analysis -- the difference of a code compliant building. that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

.economic necessities. maybe if i had three choices, and a building that were totally code compliance, -- compliant, it might be feasible, but as it was presented to the board, the design for the reason given makes perfect sense, and i would be willing to pull the trigger tonight, and i would be supportive of this measure. commissioner peterson: i am happy to go next. my primary concern was the letter, and perhaps that is more of a private cause of action.

i think that the public policy to promote a platinum office building in san francisco may outweighs them and the concerns by the owner of 50 bealte. -- beale. i will leave that to them, but i think the public policy, how much work has gone into this, i guess i would just say that the 50 beale, i would feel comfortable ruling tonight, but i respect the desires of my fellow commissioner who feels he may need more information. commissioner hwang: i likewise and in favor of making the decision tonight and of holding

the findings. like the project sponsors stated, we will probably see this again. president goh: well, that was the direction of leading until i heard commissioner fung for the continuance, and it does not look like we have the votes. is there a motion, commissioners? vice president garciaparra: -- garcial -- garcia: i do not have that motion. does someone else? commissioner fung: i do not have that motion. vice president garcia: i do not

have that motion. >> a section 309 exception? vice president garcia: you read my mind. director goldstein: a motion -- president goh: i have a question. >> you did state that there is no error, the substantial evidence to support this. president goh: it was your language that made me wonder if i was mistaken. vice president garcia: this would be as if a variance, right? >> the zoning administrator

hazmat. this is discretionary. you are upholding the planning commission action for the reasons stated in their findings. director goldstein: on that, commissioner peterson, vice president garcia, commissioner fung. that is 4-1. we will move to the last item on the calendar, which is item number eight. appeal number 11-027. this is against the department. the property is on jones street, protesting the issuance of february 16, 2011, a permit to

alter a building. this is nonstructural. we will start with the appellant. mr. krebs. >> my name is w.b., and i am here representing the appellant. vice president garcia: what is not permitted is to yell from the audience. >> i will try to keep this as brief as possible. president goh: , to the

microphone if you're going to speak. -- come up to the microphone. commissioner hwang: my question is what is the basis for your objection? i am the owner of the property. if he is not the appellant, then -- vice president garcia: if he is authorized to represent the appellant. >> does he have something that says he is authorized? commissioner hwang: if he says he is, we believe him. >> i do not know. i have not been here before. are you going to accept his word that he is