>> 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 reasons to do that and it's more green to keep the existing building and add to it. it's not tall enough for the wedding-cake approach. if it was a taller building i would be in favor of it more slender. but in total we are ending up with 14 floors -- only 12. it would look almost silly to have it sculpted at the top because it's so small relative. and unfortunately why you don't want to mimic something from the past. it was not successful most

adjacent buildings are more squared off. this would look something like the union bank next to it, which is built in the 80's is a fairly square look. and i don't think that the wedding cake approach makes sense. i would be happy it move with the understanding continue to work on design and comes back to the commission for a presentation with the new design for us to see. so that would be a motion. >> second. commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i think what commissioner moore is trying to get at is something beyond just the design. and to try to put it in the context of the urban design plan and the downtown plan and see how all of those different policies and parameters and

whatnot could affect this particular corner. that i understand. i think that without -- everything costs money. so -- i think one of the directions she was indicating was perhaps there could be a different approach to the structural system. you had the existing structural system which is concrete and it's in bays. but is there a way to lay a mat or something on top of that and then it becomes an independent system that is supported from underneath the -- but you have more freedom up above to play with different design aspects. and that's the kind of thing, maybe unreasonable, i don't know. but i think that's direction that commissioner moore is trying to get us to look at.

short of that, then going back to commissioner hillis's concern about it being too much, trying to make it too integrated or not integrated. i think is something that i was trying to look at. because i know what you are trying to do. but somehow it doesn't come off right. i don't know how else to put it. by bringing everything up, all the vertical elements up, it doesn't and to have the original building expressed the way it is, it doesn't seem to work for me. i am not saying you need to totally redesign the whole thing. but perhaps if we try to stay short of what commissioner moore

is trying to get us to do. then i would be happier if there were some design tweaks. and mainly more to differentiate the top from the bottom. >> if i can interject one thing, i didn't bring a lot of detail drawings. but if you open up the screen again. the facade above, i went in the same image. it's not flat. and if you look at where i am scrolling here. these are the main pieces of structure. aside each one in addition, the glass is set back to the back of the structure. those are insets of about two feet. so you have a flat bay. and at the top that, the inset and the railing follows that. the glass railing follows that. there is quite a bit of

arcticulation if you follow that. and the difference between what is below and what is above. and then there is the larger set back at the roof, at the top floor here. this is the full set-back at that. so in terms of its relationship to the existing, there is a lot of lines that continue so you read the building vertically. and there a lot of detail in the upper floors that relate to the lower floors that create that in's and out's. without a full set back. >> yeah, i am not suggesting that. i am not an architect, i went to architecture school, i am a planner. i went a lot of time in architecture school, i am historic preservation.

it seems though something could be worked within the bay itself that isn't so forward. if you get my drift here. and i know that the stuff in between is set back a little bit from the major structural elements that you are bringing up. but that might be something to take a look at if we are going to tweak it in some fashion. >> commissioner moore. >> since the probably more thoughtful consider addition in detail is probably better than what is below. it's primarily what comes to the lower part of the street wall that we experience in the building being somewhat dated, let me say that carefully, i want to be polite here. the issue i would to remind the commission of, we are not

approving a building today. far from that. we are approving the exceptions that come with wanting extrude a building over the existing structure within the nonexisting set-backs. these the issues. and they create what it is. and i think the addition on its own as it's set on top of this unspectacular building on the bottom is what makes the whole situation worse. as it does not play in adding a new addition, that plays with the rules even interpreted in whatever way. but primarily extrudes an existing building without other things that are required of a newer building. so we are only entitling the building to move forward with any further challenges.

and whether or not the department or someone else continue to work on it, it will still be what it is. and that's where the short comings are. and that's why i regret that the architecture did not have this building reviewed and look at other structural solutions and make a spectacular change to this thing. i know they can do it, because from here on up and the sensitivities but it doesn't come together when this building sits smack on top of something not so good. >> commissioner antonini. >> we have heard comment from the architect that the structural elements are positioned where they are. and they are without a major rebuilding of the building with new structural element in the building and repositioning elevator shaft s andthose things. we are stuck with those.

and the ability that commissioner sugaya talked about the set-back of the windows more than now, back a couple of feet. to create a more feeling of depth. i don't know if that can be done with the existing structure on the lower levels as commissioner moore is talking. th might tend to give the lower building a better appearance. and we don't want to do look exactly like the upper addition. but if it could have more of that feeling. technically the supporting elements are right at the property lean -- line, and we would set it back and recess the floors to give it a feeling of more depth. i am wondering if that's a possibility. >> i don't know the answer to that off the top of my head of we can definitely work with the project sponsor's team to address all of these concerns

before bringing it back to you. the one point i want to make sure is clear, there is two conversations going on that are somewhat mutually exclusive and one is issue of set back and one is the design the whole of the building. and i want to be sure that the set-back requirements, there are no set-back requirements on the california street or battery street at all. it can go all the way up without setbacks. the exceptions sought for the set-backs are 1.5 feet on the facade and 15 feet on the property lean -- line. and want to be sure that everyone understands the set-back issue, the interior line and the foot-and-a-half on hallock, and the design i

understand and we are willing to look with the team and see what we have a more successful design to bring back to you. >> yeah, i like that and i mentioned in the comments about the set-back on hallock, i made it clear it's minimal. the one foot, six inch and the building, i am not talk about that. the shafts and against an alley on the other side that is a service alley. it doesn't make sense. the areas that could be set back on the building are more on california and battery. and more to get the desired aesthetics. and you wouldn't be losing a lot of square footage. but probably more setbacks that tie it into the lower. thank you the my feeling and what i would be supportive of. >> thank you, commissioner hillis. >> i am supportive, i think you crystallized my thoughts. and i talk about setbacks as

really a design element. not because we need them there. it's challenging as you drive around the city and pick out a building where there is big additions. they usually don't work, and su -- and you think to yourself who approved that. we want to rise and make this great and it's challenging to add to a building that is not the greatest design. >> commissioner sugaya. >> that said, the building itself his own integrity. if you want to call it that. and maybe concentrating on tweaks to the top. that's one thing. but perhaps you guys should also look at tweaks at the bottom. and maybe the vertical elements between the structural bays don't need to be there, or something like that. and less integration from that

standpoint, vertically. maybe that's part of the problem you are trying to cover up the existing building so to speak. i don't know. but that may be something to think about, not just the top but what is happening below. >> commissioner moore. >> taking that conversation further and not talking about architecture here. at this moment the stark contrast between a lovely cafe and a lovely lobby. that is enriching the pedestrian experience, walking in the first section of the corner. and then come to the corner tenant. we will not mention any names, who has been in continuous violation of how they treat their ground-floor windows. and now further entitled to get additional windows on battery street is not making me particularly happy. nothing in that establishments interior is contributing to the

pedestrian experience. no display windows, definitely clearly selling of paper and binders and folders, none of which helps as you turn the corner to become better. so we are stuck between a rock and hard place, because any additional windows on that frontage will not help make the street better. nor will the disappearance of the fire escape because we don't have those fire escapes anyway. what do you have to offer for creating additional windows on battery street and a tenant that does not particularly merchandise towards enriching the pedestrian experience. >> two quick comments on the ground floors on battery street. the addition of those glazed

bays are coding requirement. so we actually as a department asked them to add those so they would be in code compliance. and the second point, that is important, by passing this motion today that includes transparency and acknowledging the code sections, all that have come in effect post the original construction of this building, make these windows the visibility of the business and we have this document that we have a tool of enforcement for these conditions approval. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> am i to understand that the roof top is public accessible space? >> yes. >> how is that going to be identified?

or have we not got to those details? >> we haven't got to those details but to be signage on the level. >> okay, no one know where is these things are. >> commissioner antonini. >> my motion is to continue to work with staff and the department to explore some of the suggestions made by commission commissioner here today. and if they come up with another design those designs come back to us to review. >> i think we want to have an informational presentation with the results of the new design. although our motion is to approve relatively -- relative

to these two motions today. but accept presentation when the design changes are made. >> that motion is made and seconded. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like this conversation would have ahead before moving ahead for approval. and that's not the case. and as we are taking step 2 before step 1 that i cannot support the project for this procedural issue. >> please call the question. >> commissioners on that motion to approve both the determination of compliance and allocation of square footage, adding the condition that the project sponsor continue to work with the design. [calling the roll] >> so moved, commissioners that motion passes 5-1. with commissioner moore voting

against and commissioner fong absent. commissioners that concludes your regular calendar and leaves you with public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> any general public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. meeting adjourned. hub.

>> hi, i'm jean yes my name is jean and sometimes, people call me sir, girl. san francisco has served our sewer system and it's no square feet it's a matter of time. that's why we're planning major upgrades public health depends on it that. see how this important work is

done. i was fascinated by it. we're going to creek. i would recycle you to come up and see the sewer system in minnesota that's why we see this through the plant. a lot of people don't realize how much work sgo goes into cleaning the water were. we offer free service to san

>> so what brought you out here for the bike ride today? >> i grew up in san francisco but i have been living in new york. i wanted to see what san francisco is doing with infrastructure. >> cities are where people are living these days. the bay area is doing a lot with construction and the way to change the world starts here. >> we are about to take a bike ride. we have 30 cyclist. i'm really excited to hit the road and see what the city has in store.

>> i definitely recommend it to people. it's a fun afternoon and you learn so many things. >> this is so much fun. i go to parts of the city that i don't come to. this will make the city a more susta

>> pilaties. it's a creation, an old regimen of exercise. really based on core engagement and core structure and core development. we do a lot of exercise in developing that and think about lengthening of the spine and our muscles. if you're a runner, if you're into

kayaking, martial arts, cycling pilates are for you. >> programs are variety year around at various locations and to learn more come to the

>> if you have public comments to make make sure to fill out one of our comment cards on the desk. if there not there crystal is getting them and thank you to sfgovtv and 3 to 4 services for broadcasting this live to air to the public. we'll start this meeting with roll