on the right of the same sheet, you can see, we have stepped up the building back from where it was. the new building will be further. the protrusion that they are concerned about. if you look down, you can see that column in the middle. two weeks ago, we met with the building department and the fire department and showed them the scheme we had been given. i told them it wouldn't work and we showed it to them anyway.

is this an exhibit as well? the issues to a floor plan of a typical floor. the shaded area is the amount of fat protrusion as it stands. what we have done is been able to pull it in 3 feet from the east. we showed that last week, and apparently it is not enough, because they are here. but we are able to do that. we would like to do it. it is cheaper for us to not build that volume if we can avoid doing it. where we are in the process -- we have the entitlements. we do not have the completed design for the structural

system, which will need to be peer reviewed. we cannot commit to eliminate any more volume on the floor until we know exactly where we end up with the structural system, which needs to go through, as i said, a complete design and then a peer review at the building department. they have asked you to continue this. i suspect that we do not have an elimination, that there is going to be an appeal of our building permit, and we will be back here again and they can make whatever complaints that are quick to make. you should also keep in mind that they're building is open on three sides. it is open onto mission street. it is open on to bill street. on the north side, it is a big open plaza. we put this little pop up for what we consider to be the back of our building, and it faces

the back of their building. the building is much better off with three open sides. i would be happy to go through a lot more. we have given you a complete set metal. we have our own and architect and engineers here to answer questions. i urge you to deny the appeal and allow us to submit our plans. we will see what we can do to continue to engineer our building. thank you. >> from what has been submitted, it is now reduced by 3 feet. is that correct, in terms of the encroachment? >> what i am saying is i am pretty certain that we can reduce the pop out mechanical element by 3 feet in each direction. i am not asking you to approve anything or to change the permits that we have. i think we are going to do that anyway.

we may be able to do more when we finished engineering the building. vice president garcia: in some instances, if you were to do that, could you produce the encroachment to a foot and a half? >> due to the size of the pop out, up 4.5 feet. >> would -- which would reduce the encroachment down to 1.5 feet? >> i am not sure if that is the number. i do not think it is. it would in a concomitant way -- it would reduce the amount of encroachment for that building. as i say, we are probably going to do this anyway. what i am trying to say to you is that this is not an effort to try to win against them.

frankly, our interests are kind of the same. if we can eliminate the mechanical element in its entirety and not reduce rental square footage and not increase load factor, we are probably going to do that regardless. president goh: i have some questions. the way it stands, 7.5 feet wide, and those of 21 stories. that is because the air fields in and out of the story. that is what makes it green. >> exactly. president goh: and the reduction would make that 7.5 ft. 421 stories potentially down to 4.5 feet and would still service each floor in and out? thank you. >> that is what we went to the building department and fire department two weeks ago to try to see if the scheme we now

have to work and is permissible. it is. i am very comfortable if we can do this much. commissioner hwang: what is the difference between the preclusion and 500-- the protrusion and 50 beale street? >> their building is 6 feet back from the line. 13 feet. commissioner hwang: from , that makes it seven? >> about 7 feet. -- from the lot line, that makes it seven? >> about 7 feet. commissioner hwang: in the picture you first put on the overhead, i am not sure if that is a light fixture that extends beyond the building to the right, that oval-shaped white

thing. >> i should probably have the architects speak to that. commissioner hwang: because it looks like that light fixture protrudes. i am just curious if i am not looking at it right. >> is that the digital art? >> i am the architect. the electrical form you are seeing on the lower right side is a two-story glass pavilion that has a detailed element on the ground level and has a special conference room on the second level. it is partially with in the lobby space and partially outside. it is about 18 feet tall.

commissioner hwang: i am talking about what appears to be a horizontal -- >> that element here? that is the ceiling. commissioner hwang: i get it now. thank you. it is partially out said of the building. -- outside of the buildling. >> i think it is about 8 feet out. in that particular case, that goes to the property line. commissioner hwang: on the right side? >> you are talking about it elliptical thing? how far does the project out? from the face of the building, that is approximately 8 feet out from the face of the building,

which should set it back 7 feet from the property line, six or 7 feet. president goh: can you point out the mechanicals in that same picture? correct this element back here -- vertically, you see this line here. that is the face of the mechanical protection between that line and the glass wall. there are louvers facing south and north that take care and exhaust out as well. commissioner hwang: and that would be set in if the revised plan worked? >> it is a zone that is roughly 30 feet -- 39 feet in the plan.

it projects out from the glass. president goh: we need to see the overhead again so you can point to that. >> the depth we are talking about from the glass wall to the face -- there are louvers here facing the mission street side and the north side, away from the 50 beale street property. i am not sure if i answered your question properly. >> this may be helpful. now that we have spent some time on it, this is the back of the building. this is the property line. the mechanical element we are talking about clears only a third of our building. it is right in the middle.

that is really what we are talking about. that is 39 feet, which i think we can do. that mechanical element is what you're seeing back here. that is before the reduction. commissioner hwang: why can it not be designed to bring it in? why can it not be designed to function as you would like it to function, but flesh with the rest of the building? >> it is required for mechanical equipment and electrical equipment. the space that is needed and would require us to project out further. there is not enough room between the center of the court to the

exterior wall with the elevators, the stairs, the toilets, and all that is needed within the fan room. there is an area that is required on the equipment side, as well as the maintenance walking area. commissioner peterson: could you squeeze it in and of things around? >> at this point, based on the studies we have done, we cannot take it in any further. commissioner hwang: what of the studies? >> we have been working on it with our mechanical engineers, trying to reduce the size of the room. it is in the interest of our client to do that. based on what is required and

where the design is at this time, we cannot guarantee that we can squeeze this any further. we have to have allowances for every part of the building. commissioner hwang: you can design it anyway you want it, right? >> no. commissioner hwang: i want to understand why you cannot design around that. >> because it is not a normal mechanical system. we are trying to reach the leed platinum standard. so we have additional physical mechanical requirements in addition to what a normal building would have. we put those mechanical requirements at the back of the building in order to draw air in and exhaust air on each floor. here is the rest of it. the way highrises work, we have

a performance-based engineering structural system that is not fully designed yet. when it is fully designed, it goes to the building department. there will be a peer review at dbi. we will get feedback. if the feed back is great and the structural system worked perfectly, we might be able to make some more room. but until we finish that and go through a plan check, which cannot produce anything. that is why i said earlier we are going to go to a plan check process. we are good to submit the process. it takes a lot of detail. when we finish the process, hopefully we will come out the other end with a building permit. if there is the protrusion, i am sure they will appeal and we will see you again. or we will have been able to eliminate it by that time.

commissioner hwang: do you understand their complaints about the protrusion? what do you understand it to be? >> actually, i do not. if you walk between those buildings right now, we are going to do better than what it is right now in the back of the building. vice president garcia: is the simple answer that you would lose -- commissioner hwang: i am asking what 50 beale street's problem is. vice president garcia: why can't it be brought in more so that it does not require an exception? the simple answer is you would lose rentable space. >> that is the simple answer. it would be un-rentable. vice president garcia: it would

render it not feasible to do the building at all. >> tenants require certain bay depths in order to have offices. those are well understood by marketing people. we would not be able to produce a building design floor plan that would work. it is not just a matter of producing numbers. it is a matter of creating a plan for a building that nobody would want to be in. that is the problem. president goh: the air exhaust and input had to do with that mechanical structure having three sides so that the louvers on the sides -- there was coming in on the sides. >> i am glad you asked the question. we would prefer to exhaust air

north and south. president goh: it is downstairs. if they hear the word overhead, they put it up. you can point. >> with a little bit of protrusion, we can exhaust air north and south and not into 50 beale street. what they are asking us to do i do not think is in their interest. if we are successful in eliminating this entirely, we would have to exhaust air going this way are this way. instead, it will go that way. i am not sure it is in their interest. president goh: i understand. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning

department staff. i think the presentation given by the project sponsor has been very thorough. i am lucky to be joined this evening by the planner who handled this. he is one of our neighborhood planners with excellent knowledge of this project. he will be able to get into detail with any question. on february 11, they certified the environmental impact report. at this hearing on the 10th, the planning commission also unanimously approved the office allocation for the project, the exceptions, and the variants granted for the project -- variance granted for the project. that has five findings which must be met and much show a

hardship, versus the exception. that would consider a variety of criteria set back in the planning code. i would like to highlight two of the exceptions. i would like to talk a little bit about the goals. the tower separation is in order to assure there can be distinguished form. this is a corner lot. on two sides, it does have of this tower separation. one side has a courtyard. it is set back 6.5 feet from the shared property line, similar to what 50 beale street has. there were built before these

requirements went into effect. with the downtown plan and requirements there, with regards to bulk, there are five general standards. if you need one of the five -- it is not a high bar. one of the requirements there is to -- this is a small development. i think that justifies the granting of the variants. the board of supervisors fully supported this. i would also like to note that the requirements kick in at 103 feet. the carry set back all the way down to the ground.

they are providing a more generous setback at the lower levels than is required in the code. that is an important note as well. they are not maximizing at all levels. the separation level kicks in at 103 feet above the base level. they are actually providing greater relief to the adjacent building at the lower levels. with that, i am available to answer any questions. if you have any questions for mr. guy, i would love to have him speak. i think you will be as impressed with him as i am. president goh: the 103 foot setback requirement -- what mr. sanchez was saying was that they could not decide this -- they could design this building so it came all the way out for the first 103 feet. is that right? >> yes.

that is correct. the lower power requirement -- tower requirement begins at a high of 103 feet. on the site adjacent, they are providing a more significant setback in what is required. president goh: why did they do that? >> i suppose it would have to ask the project sponsor. one of the things we look at in terms of criteria and what the commission considers in exceptions is whether or not you have done a compensatory reductions in other areas of the building to make up for where you might be seeing a book standard or a separation standard elsewhere. in this particular case, they did provide a more generous set back on the lower levels than

has been acquired. they were not fully compliant with that separation. >> thank you. commissioner fung: did you participate in this project from its inception? >> i did. from the time immediately preceding the finding, the 309 application, and those types of approvals are within the province of neighborhood planning. so from the time of filing those entitlements forward. commissioner fung: during the course of that, not only in terms of the environmental review, but in terms of design review with your department, you must've gone through a series of alternatives. >> we do not necessarily looked completely at alternative

building forms in the way that maybe an eir might. we worked extensively with the project sponsor on overall building forms and whether or not we felt the criteria for meeting these was affordable. commissioner fung: was there a non-exception alternative? >> there was a co-compliant alternative in the eir. commissioner fung: but not in the design review. >> they are sort of related and throughout the neighborhood review process, looking at alternatives to changes and variations of building form. we are always considering whether or not the exception criteria and the planning code are met. commissioner peterson: did your

department analyzed the 1967 bechdel letter to the building department at the time? >> i was aware of the letter. i have seen the letter. i would not say we analyzed it to any great degree. we were basically advised by the city attorney's office, and perhaps dbi staff could speak further to this, that some mandated setback or agreement was recorded on the property, really based on its own evidence. it was not something we were obligated as a city to enforce. vice president garcia: in your own words, how would you characterize or summarize the best reasons for granting the exception that is under review? >> the criteria with respect to the tower separation is

specifically spelled out in the planning code. it essentially states that you are not impeding access to light and air, or the appearance of separation between buildings. you are not visibly adding to the bulk of the building. with respect to this exception, there is a couple of different points. one is the fact that the proposed project provides a greater separation at lower floors than is required by code. the fact that the protrusion of the mechanical shaft, which accounts for the biggest variation, or the biggest request for the exception, in terms of the setback -- that occurs at sort of the middle point of the building along the property line. it does not visibly and to the bulk of the building, particularly in the public right of way. again, the fact that that

feature is integral to the project if desired certification is a factor as well. instead, we are actually trying to seek to look at the environmental quality of the project. vice president garcia: one thing that caused me pause when i was reading this -- i will not say the language was facile or live -- or blythe, but we discussed that above 100 feet, 50 beale would not want to expand upward. does this bar their right to expand a port in future? >> it would not necessarily prejudiced any future proposal.

if 50 beale proposed additional floors, there would be subject to the same areas of the planning code. they would have to seek to justify any exception. vice president garcia: so the setbacks above 300 feet in no way affect future setbacks that might have to be sought? >> no. there would be considered separately on their own merits -- they would be considered separately on their own merits. this building is actually built at a lower height than what the principle zoning envelope height would be. when we are talking about the preservation of light and air, there is about 200 feet of unrealized building space that is not being utilized or taking advantage -- are taken advantage

of. that is a compensating factor for the fact that they are encroaching in that separation. president goh: i have a question i forgot to ask earlier. the old building was going to be demolished. can you talk about that 1923 building and its historic value or significance? >> that would be to the environmental review process. it is an older building. my understanding is that it has been pretty extensively altered over time. presidentgoh: