district and there are buildings at intersection of california and battery. at the northeast corner, can i have an overhead please? we have a 260 california street as well that is a 12-story building as well, if this project goes through this will equal the height. so when you think you are looking down california street, which is one of our thoroughfares and people up and down the cable cars, looking the view and east down california. this 12-story building will match the height of this historic 12-story building. we have to be sure when we change the viewses and changing the street scape here, that we make sure that we are going through proper reviews. and also when you are on the

southwest corner at california and battery, you have the robert dollar building that is another historic building on the other corner. changing the massing around that corner and the sight lines and views around that corner. when we have a project, we want to be sure that we are honoring decades of planning and code and procedures and to give the a few review that it deserves. and the reasonable amount of review, and we at san francisco beautiful and san francisco tomorrow we are happy to be here to make sure that whenever we are doing these kinds of proposal and projects. that they get the review and the time and the deliberation that they do deserve when we add such bulk and height increases, even in the downtown corridor. thank you for your attention.

>> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> i think this is a very good project and the fact that this goes up to 12 floors and matches the historic building and the robert dollar building is appropriate. and it improves the aesthetics 100%, the existing building i don't think anyone would feel it's an aesthetic building, it's pretty dumpy. and the height of the building, i think adding those additional floors adds verticality and makes it agree with the smaller buildings mentioned. and it agrees with the taller buildings it's adjacent too. obviously we have exceptions. but i can speak to those from

the benefit of the speaker from san francisco beautiful. the loading dock is essentially off of hallock, when is a separate alley, that makes easy to get things in and out of. and the tower separation is 1 foot six inches, and on hallock is the union building and that's a flat wall. and while the separation isn't what it needs to be, it isn't anything significant. the wind allowances are two lower and one higher. and while mentioned because of that exception is a new exceedance that wasn't there before. and illuminates by the studies we have. and the green roof and the aesthetics and the sidewalk

widening make it a very appropriate building for a very visible and historical street as is california street. and so i like this project a lot. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a couple of questions about this building and i would like to frame the questions it in the larger context of looking at the building per se. we have talked many times about the possible identification of the historic core and trying to find ways to potentially address identification and in the absence of that we have no other tools using those that created the new buildings in context of the older buildings. as a guiding element by which we look at additions such as this. and the one issue i have a

problem with is the following. the project is a 1946 noncontributory building, i would call it less than plain vanilla. because even its contemporary facade improvements don't even lift it to a vernacular architect that you are commendable that commissioner antonini said in other words. and adding on top of this and the building is large for the majority of buildings in that part of town. it occupies half a block with zero set-backs to all sides, that is unusual to this part of town. having said that it exceeds height and bulk for anything that comes beyond its addition based on the downtown plan. and it has requirements which it can't meet at the moment that it's not proposing any set-backs. if i look at one of the major

policies that apply for this downtown part of town and on the district the other side of street. it reads as buildings in height and to be silhouette to be slender. and not building bulkiness. what we are doing without any setbacks not obeying even tower separation. y -- i think we are doing something that not existing and setting a bad example. i think it's not a good argument to rely on your neighbor set-back to not justify one yourself.

because my next door neighbor on the plane doesn't mean he gets to occupy my space. and the those buildings in downtown are scaled on the rules on the downtown plan may not amount to great architecture. however they are harmonious side by side of old and new. and that's what i ask for. the reason that this building doesn't attempt to set back and to be different with minor play on the corner is not enough for me and a broader view to extend -- what is called an authorization that short cuts any further review. i cannot support it the way it's in front of me. i am greatly supportive for your search for additional space. and again you are operating

within a much higher height district. however height is modified by considerations for height and bulk, and tower separation set-backs. i leave you with that. i encourage you to find a solution, it's just not this one. and i cannot support the authorization before me today. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i think -- i have an issue with the height and bulk here. it doesn't even come close to the height of it. but i want to ask the architect a question on the design, and the integration between the old and new. it doesn't really work for me. and i think one of the solutions could be setting back the newer portion of the building. i think you have tried to kind of extend the new portion of the

building to the existing building. which i get the concept. but i think it ends up as a whole not a great design. whereas you could have set it back or even just refaced the old building to make it look. i think your design of the new portion of the building is fine. but the kind of integration between old and new doesn't seem to work for me. so the question i guess, what other options did you look at. did you look at refacing the entire old building? to make it work better with what you designed on the newer portion? >> the existing building is a concrete structure. and it's concrete walls, shot-crete long ago, with cut openings, and then it's plat --

plastered. so we are replacing all the glass and not making it bigger because it was part of the seismic retrofit done earlier. we have taken the elements from the base started in the initial renovation along california street as an idea to unify through the mass of the existing building up through the addition. and express those. and there is some set-back. the glass is not in a major way. it's a concrete structure setting back, would mean moving back a full bay. we thought that having an erosion at the corner on all four corners and expression of a

kind of unique top in set-backs at the top level. it does set back a full bay at the top level. was enough in this extruded form. and the set-back along of the union bank side is very difficult because that is where the elevators exist for this building. and so they are right up against union cal. so there really isn't, we would have to completely retrofit and move the core of the existing building, to another location for all the elevating stairs. that's where it is. it's planned just like union cal building that has all of its core elements at that edge. that really was never an economic idea that we considered setting back on that side.

>> did you look at setting back on the other three sides? >> we are setting back on california street on the four corners. >> what about on the union bank side? >> we did look at that, it makes for an awkward transition, that you have a very stubby, lower portion that is eight stories. and setting back 15 feet it was like a very -- it was a very removed approach to adding an addition to the building. our goal here was to have it feel like it was all one building. at the end. >> what about tearing this building down was that considered by the project sponsor because you are dealing with a kind of not attractive building and constraints with the elevator and working with that. i get your challenge.

>> the building is highly desirable on the inside. this is a shot of the inside in one of the tenants that has four floors, it's all concrete. that's what these tenants are looking for today. and everything is exposed. its structure was very robust. and they had already spent money to update the structure. the core is in the right place. to move the core, side where the core is would have no windows for eight floors. so the core is in the right place and there is buildings and our neighbor is one of them. so -- we -- the economics also of tearing the building down and

building new really didn't pencil out. because the building is in good form, is in good shape and desirable. so we never really. >> no, i get it -- >> hi, i am john prabu, owner the building, we did address a couple of your concerns. we did look to whether reclad the exterior of the building, i am in agreement it's not the prettiest building around. but we had an issue to add any weight from the outside from the seismic standpoint to do the additional floors and the exterior, recladding was not feasible. there would have to be an upgrade in the structure. one thing in 2009-10, when we did the seismic upgrade we had

planned for the four additional floors when we did the voluntary upgrade. we spent a significant amount of money and we also at the same time leased the building up. and we have long term leases in place, and economically it doesn't make sense to take the building down. we have to use the instruct and you are work within that. and in the setbacks it's challengiing and you have less square footage and to make that pencil out. >> i see your problems but most people you end up with a design that isn't great. because you have to deal with the problems, that's what people will see. not necessarily the interior of the building that works great. unless you work for econ. but the exterior, you got all of these constraints about the core and economics and the existing building. and the result is you know not a

lot better than what was before there. >> there are ways that we can use paint and other light-weight materials to dress up and address the bottom half of the building. >> yeah, the ground floor is great, and opening up the bays. and the design of the upper floors i think is fine. it's how it works together. >> i think there is a way to marry the additional floors to make sure they are complementary and address the other half. commissioner ant nan -- commis antonini. >> it's well done in my opinion, and we have approved a lot of buildings where we added additional floors during my time

on the commission. and i don't remember many asking for a set back on the new addition. and it emphasizes the dumpiness on the lowers. what the virtual elements do is tie that lower element to the newer element. and give it a more graceful feeling, it's taller and thinner now. much as the case for the building we approved i think it was last week. where we added some height to a building i think it was on tahama, and this is new construction, and taller and more representative of the buildings in its vicinity. and the even the historic buildings are this height. this is a total utilization of that corner,ic -- i like it.

and i want to hear from the other commissioners if there is design changes. i don't see a lot done to this building that needs to be done to make this approval for the additional floors. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i have a question for the architect. in your design you are bringing up at the corners some thicker, i don't know the correct way to describe it. thicker elements within which you have the bays that are ex n depe extended from the bottom. are those structural elements? >> yes. >> in judging from the rendering at the corner of california and battery, you have actually set those back a bit. >> the only column that we haven't brought up is the one at

the corner. >> right. so you were able to more or less suspend the corner elements. >> yes, and the corner is set back. they are actually set back about five feet. >> can you do same thing on the facade? or no? >> leaving the structure there? out at the face and pulling the glass back? >> i don't know how your structural -- are the ones that are in between all the corners are those structural elements? >> they are all structural elements, everyone of them at the property line. they are all structural. >> okay. >> the element that we are supplanting on, the column is right behind that. it's actually part of the wall. >> okay, so what i was thinking

ain't going to work. >> so you have to either set back a full bay. >> right. >> or nothing. you know and we are setting back the -- the glass is set back within the frame. where the glass and the lower portion at the frame, and that's about six inches of set back in the upper portions. >> commissioner. >> thank you, in light of the conversation i want to offer a couple of things. the building looks to have a larger floor plate because it's short. it's 15,000 square feet that is modest. and setting back a full bay on

the upper floor is bad for floors fairly small. and i offer that. and secondly, we are happy, we have the standard condition about staff continuing to work with the project sponsors on the design, we are happy to work on the facade with specific on that. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask about the all alley. i just by coincidence looked at your website and you have a proposal on your website that is dated october 4, 2013. just a few weeks ago. my question is why are we not asking people to pay more attention to the alley. this is a west-east alley and

including buildings to punch through and you are using that as one reason why you are not paying attention to it. i believe there are many great examples of alleys in the immediate vicinity of this building to reuse andan -- animate alleys and why the argument here, and no doors. that we are basically supporting property line development and extrusion at the edge of the property? >> i think the answer would be, this is an alley used by four different major office buildings for service and loading. and they are doing major improvements on california and battery along the street. and to do other street scape improvements. of all the alleys we have, i would suggest this is not one to

do major pedestrian improvements on because of the service needs of this particular alley. >> and you made another comment about typical floor plates in downtown. i don't think that is an argument to circumvent the elements spelled out in the downtown plan. you have what you have and you need work with it. >> commissioner borden. >> i think i feel a little differently. i find the current building so offensive that the improvement is greater than the existing. i think this is a squat building. i have been in this office and i am familiar with the way they are laid out. and my office is only a few blocks from here. so you know, while it would be great to have set back. i think given the complexities of the existing floor plate and using the existing infrastructure, i am not as

concerned about it. of course we would prefer to have greater tower separation and set-backs. and i think we have explored that and limitations. and i think it's great that you are not demolishing the building, and we had this debate about reuse. and it would be more disruptive to demolish the building and rebuild. and now with the current office space and environment i don't know if it would be advantageous to lose that to rebuild and cause more pressure on the market. i personally given the constraints, i am not the architecture design expert and i would defer to staff and other on the commission how to approve the appearance of the facade to be less commanding on the wall of the building. there are design elements you

can do to make it look like it's a set back, that are advantageous. i myself am support of the project and appreciate its limitation and what it's trying achieve. i have always thought that building is ugly. >> i tend to agree, and that the staff can work with the project sponsor and for integration. but setting it back a full bay would give it a tier wedding cake and not what it is current, i too am supportive of the project. >> i am not necessarily supporting a set back but less integration or more. like a lighter touch that commissioner sugaya talked about. making it more glassy on top or

changing more elements of the facade below. i think that the design of the addition is fine but the integration of how they work together. i would like to see it, if it comes back to us. >> so do i. >> i would like to see significant design changes but open to whatever (inaudible). >> commissioner moore. >> in the absence of having a structural engineer who could talk to us about the feasibility of inserting a structure over the existing structure that, is done frequently. i don't think that the department has experience on that level to be a clear partner in dialogue. it's not about facady things, it's about much larger issue. and that is figuring out how

innovatively an existing building, and leave its weaknesses aside and it has strengths with the award in the lobby and many awards won in lobby improvement and cafe in 1999. but the building itself needs to be at least for this approval looked at with slightly a different eye than making facade adjustments. it has to answer larger questions. and i would be happy to support that. and not just by deferring to the planning department and i feel there needs to be a larger input in how we look at this. it's a great opportunity to do something that hasn't been done before. and i am all for to repeat my earlier statement finding good ways in the existing core. but this way is not the correct

way. and i have to admit i don't like all the tools. i like what i like to see a more dialogue of how this building to be a showcase. and i am not sure if the architect could insert a structure in the structure, that is done, and there are buildings here and across the country that have done it award winning solution, and this is not approximating an award winning solution. and you have stated the short comings and we have to do this in a forward-looking way. and (inaudible) not a deal-breaking point for me. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i am trying to hear what commissioner moore is s sayi saying. i think as far the aesthetics you are trying to have a

set-back or not for the new addition? are you interested in a set back? >> the full bay set back as proposed in the absence of a structural engineer telling us other ways of doing this is not an answer which i could give you comfortably. i cannot do that, i need more expertise and look at the building. that's what i suggesting to the owner and act -- architect and builder. >> i am amenable to this and to be open to others and if we gain by continuance, i would be supportive of that. but fine the way it is, then maybe you can answer if you feel you can work can commissioner moore and some others to make

modifications that might be -- >> thank you, commissioner. i think obviously our preference today would to have a vote and bring it back to the commission for an informational hearing. the project sponsor and architecture is willing to work with staff and incorporate the comments made at the hearing today. that is our preference but at the credit of the commission. >> i am happy to move it forward with a presentation back us and commissioners work with staff on the design. i am seeing a lot of limitations as to what you can do. obviously you can tear the whole thing done and there is good