the mta to make sure that they are compliance for the issues that have to deal with a drop off or handicapped parking. >> that would be acceptable. i would not want this to be a strict condition. >> my inclination on the parking is not to bother with that here. that is their problem. this is not up to our board to make it convenient for people to access their facility. >> part of the logic for it is and you questioned the degree to which this would be placing an added burden on the police department.

the police department has requested that we have addressed the parking issue because to not do it might be an extra burden and i think it is reasonable. this would address their concern, the police department's concern. >> double parking, etc.. that is a concern everywhere. that is not unique to this type of business. i would be inclined not to address the parking. >> do you have a motion? >> this would be to adopt everything that has been discussed with the exception of the talking issues. i am sure that the mta has some

way of enforcing what should be done. all other issues, do i need to review those issues? >> if you can specify that they are on page 3 of the permit holders response brief submitted to the board on september 23rd, 2010. >> with the issue having to do with reconciliation having to do with the figures on the permit and the actual cost >> was your motion to resolve that as a condition of their release of the suspension of the permit? >> yes. >> would this be an accurate amount? >> the motion as earlier stated was to prove that the permit holder would have to prevent dbi

and planning with actual costs. >> with that, there is a consequence. i just want to get consequence with the record. there would be a corresponding increase in the feet that should have been made to the city. >> i think it that would be up to the permitting parliament to assess. >> i don't think they could issue a fine in that regard. >> i just want to make sure that is the natural consequence. if i can hit mr. duffy to confirm that with me. i would be more inclined to vote for this. >> there is actually no penalty for that apart from paying the additional fees, which would be issued.

this makes them get another permit to pay the additional fees. there is no penalty. the penalty is what the fees are. >> the differential. >> an alternative would be to get it amended or to get a new parliament that is proper. -- permits that is proper. >> this would be $62,000 according to what they have and what we have. >> that is fine. got it. thanks. >> do you believe that that process could be handled through special conditions permit instead of a separate new permit? >> i would like to think so, yes. in getting an estimate on those fees and adding that to the cost of the special conditions permit, i could work that out with the central permit a

bureau. that would be fine. >> thank you. >> is this on the permit requiring these conditions and you want a notice a special restrictions to be filed? >> personally, i would like a -- >> doesn't that give it a greater force? >> yes, that was my word. >> the motion is to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that the list of security measures contained in the brief as previously noted are recorded a special conditions on the property and that they present this in planning.

>> i believe that this is all of the requirements and the bullet points on page 3 except the last one regarding parking. >> ok. >> on the motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> that motion carries. thank-you. >> we will take a break.

>> we will resume the meeting for april 10th, this is item number seven. this is 50 beale street versus the planning commission. this is protesting the adoption of findings related to approval of a determination of compliance under planning code 309.

the project is to demolish a four story building and construct a 24 story building with 340,000 square feet of office use, 1000 square feet of retail space, 23,000 firefighters were feet of subterranean parking. we will start with the appellants. >> i am the legal counsel for the appellant. this is the office building located immediately adjacent to 350 mission. i will try to be as brief as possible. what our appeal is has to do with the planning code exception that was granted to the project.

this gets to encroach a significantly into our required 15 foot setback on the property. instead of being 15 feet from the property line, the project proposes to have a 21 story mechanical element that will run the majority of the length of the project. this project is 375 feet. above 300 feet, the planning code mandates that you step the buildings back. the building as proposes not stepped back at all. this is a monolithic wall that goes up. our point is pretty simple. if you look at this property, this is under 19,000 square feet. this is not very big, this is not very big for a project that will be 340,000 square feet.

they are right at 18 to one. they are seeking to squeeze every square inch possible out of this property. this is caused bigger than any larger in the downtown area. if you look at the submission for council for the project owner and developer, they say and a couple of different spots, they a admit that this is a smaller than average property. this is a property where they confess they are pushing the bounds economically of what they think they can accomplish. this indicates basically what percentage of the building you have to dedicate to the square footage that cannot be rented. all of the mechanical elements, those kind of things. they have run the numbers and they cannot make it work.

this property is not big enough. their solution is, we will stick our entire mechanical portion of the building in this big mechanical element that juts out seven and a half feet and goes for 21 stories. our position has been not trying to stop a building there. this would be positive for the area to redevelop. there is an underutilized building. we are perfectly happy with a building going in next door. we think the planning code is therefore a reason. we think that the setbacks are therefore a reason. if you are going to grant an exception. this is not a ministerial act. this is not by right. this is a discretionary process.

there has to be a reason why this is an animating force behind why a property owner needs the exception and then you can analyze whether or not that is proper. what the developer has offered is that they said that we need this for a -- system. you can design this without the encroachment and still maintain a certification and the objectives of the project development. well, the project developers come back and in their submission, the only reason why they gave, this is referenced

as a building designed. the only reason they have given why they does not work is that the current plans approved to not contain a dedicated -- which is required. well, putting aside the fact that the building is not conform to the planning code, that is not a reason. i would submit that this board has the authority to continue this matter so we can spend a little bit more time analyzing whether this is truly necessary.

we're not trying to stop this project. this will raise property values. >> that there is this a giant mechanical protrusion into the set back. they have not properly substantiated that they need the mechanical elements and they have not given a proper reason why this exception should be granted. that is a discretionary action. when you have evidence that this is not necessary. we think it is improper to grant the exemption. if this ends up in court, the

schedule would have to present substantial evidence to support the granting of this exception. we submit there is not substantial evidence and the record to support this. we can suggest to take more time whether it is or isn't. >> good evening. i am working with the project sponsor. >> this will be the first private platinum office building

in san francisco. it bears mentioning that i have been working on this project for five years. those five years have included one direct meeting where they were shown the plans and they have included a key public outreach meetings. they included a planning commission hearing on the ceqa and where we got approval. the first time that we heard objections was two days before the planning commission. they are entitled, that is the way things work in this city and we respect the fact that they have the right to object. it would have been easier for us to deal with those objections. >> the plans were available to everyone and they did not raise them. sometime after the unanimous

approval of the board of supervisors which was last week, and actually it was just before that between the planning commission hearing and the appeal, we were given some schemes where they had hired architects and engineered it is always a risky business to drop a plan. >> this is limited in size. this is not the entire width of the building. what this does is allow us to bring air into each floor independently.