[speaker not understood] your stamina, by the way. good evening. commissioners, president, director. thank you for your time and your kind attention and most importantly for your consideration. my name is darya jenice. i live at 301 mission street. i think the project sponsor referred to me as one of the millennium people. i'm not sure what that means, but i'm -- that's the best -- my home, my neighborhood. and i think this is an outrageously glamorous building. have you seen the computer generated animation bubble wall, grand staircase video that kill roy has on their website? it is gorgeous. anyone would want to be a neighbor of that building.

i do find it peculiar, though, that all of the renderings on that site, including the animation, depict mission as though it has already been approved for the increase and over a hundred feet for a grand total of 455. i think i saw a picture that stated that the top of the buildings was 375 feet, and i'm not sure all the documentation i have from you states 350 feet on the approved project. forgive me if i'm distorting that in some way. and i understand that the planning department's plan for our neighborhood contemplates mixed residential, commercial, and office use which is terrific, anchored by that wonderful transbay terminal when it is finished.

i look forward to that day. the additional floors requested in this proposal will significantly increase the shadows over mission street. let's just go ahead and put that on the table, shall we, because it's going to throw a shadow. it's going to make that creepy tunnel effect thing happen. so, i'm happy that we can kind of just chat about that. it's 100 feet higher than it is today, what is before you. by increasing the height of this project, it seems kind of inconsistent with the plan that will add office space to the detriment of residential and commercial occupants. i'm rather curious what was wrong with the original proposal. i thought it was a very well apportioned building to a building that was right next to it on mission street. i thought that looked very, very well. i've also been told this is a done deal by a lot of the people i've spoken to already. and i'd like to think that that

is certainly not the case. and i'm hoping that you will reconsider and keep your approval of course to the original project -- >> okay, thank you, ma'am. your time is up. and thank you. >> thank you. next speakers, if i called your name in addition, robert her and tom harte. president fong, commissioners, director ram, i'm here representing 45 fremont associates as they are the building directly to the north on fremont street, 350 mission. and our very acute problem is that we did not receive notice of this proceeding or that there was a contemplation an

increase of 100 feet in height, six stories, 25% increase in the building adjacent to our building, and in particular, adjacent to our public plaza area. we respectfully request a postponement of a month so that we can review the voluminous staff report and its attachments and determine the impact of an increase in height of that magnitude on our public plazas, on the adjacent streets, wind effect, wind impact, all of the above. we're not saying we're opposed, but we haven't received proper notice. we object to this proceeding, and we ask for a one-month postponement.

good evening, commissioners, director. my name is tom harte here on [speaker not understood] properties. we're the owner of 45 fremont street that my colleague bob her just alluded to. we just learned of this this afternoon about 2 o'clock through a real estate blog that someone had forwarded on and said, hey, have you seen this? and, so, similar in the process it's broken down. we did not receive notice. a company like ours , we receive 20-day notices and everything else all the time. and believe me, there is an iron-tight system to make sure that those don't go unread or unacted upon. and i believe that we had this same process -- same problem in '11 and, you know, at that time we worked with the then developer and accommodated going forward with the project

at that time. and now there is significant increase -- there's a lot of material, impressions about exactions, are they paying the new exactions, the old exactions, combination thereof, the shadow impacts plaza, on the bechtel park, possibly others. it is a very significant increase and i just think that, you know, san francisco has been about one thing, it certainly has been about process. it has great processes and respectfully request that you consider a continuance on this project so that it can be studied out reasonably and that what is done and acted upon is acted upon in a prudent manner. thank you very much. by the way, the postings that we were told were out there, there was one on mission street and there's one at the intersection, kind of blocked behind the barrier in an inset

with the construction fence. so, anyway, it was a surprise to us and we ask time to be able to look at the materials and come to a conclusion that what should go forward as the right thing. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? good early evening, commissioners. peter cohan from catholic community housing organizations. we have a very specific issue on the project that we'd like to have resolved and i think as jim rubin said, we have an unusual situation. your staff alluded to it. there's a question about the payment of jobs housing linkage affordable housing fees. and what this project is going to be subject to. like most developments over the last two years, they took advantage of the fee deferral

program which was put in place to stimulate construction. and as you know, there was a staff report in june which said it's no longer necessary and that's now expired. so, simply adding six floors to a building seems fairly straightforward. but from the standpoint of the fees that go towards infrastructure, the question of whether those should be deferred or whether they should be paid immediately undercurrent rules is a no-brainer. i'd like before we're finished here to get a city attorney opinion rather than relying on dbi. ~ under current to the former speaker's point, this is about exactions. i want to remind you the fees that are paid by developers whether they're commercial, residential, are for infrastructure. jobs housing linkage is to provide in this case the funding for affordable housing that serves a work force. we know in this particular case the project is essentially a build to suit. you have sales force ready to come in. this isn't just spec building. there's money behind it, money to go in the building as soon as it's opened. so, paying a fee is not

necessarily going to be an economic burden although i'm sure the project sponsor would argue otherwise. and it certainly goes towards the infrastructure in real time that's there to serve a project. that's what the various fees are for in the downtown plan and other area plans, is to ensure that there's a flow funding whether it's transportation or affordable housing or parks for those amenities in infrastructure to be there when developing comes online. feeder was an unusual and special privilege which we don't want to see continued just because. i want to give you some numbers to put this in perspective so we know what that fee deferral program's impact had on affordable housing. in fy '10 '11 jobs housing linkage, [speaker not understood], 5.3 million dollars were deferred. we don't even know what the deferral will be for this current fiscal year that just ended but let's assume it's another 5 million plus. overall over the last -- those two fiscal year periods, we've

had almost $50 million of affordable housing fees that were deferred through inclusionary jobs housinging linkage and other special fees. that's a lot of money, folks. so, whatever their fear obligation is on the additional six floors, right now the city needs revenue for affordable housing work and i would ask you to consider whether these feed need to be considered under the current rules as opposed to deferred. one might argue the original entitlement should be brought forth to current rules as well. that's probably a legal determination. thank you. sue hester. you have my letter from a week ago about this project, again about these fees. it's unusual. i don't think i have ever said i agree with robert her, the

shorenstein group at the the same hearing. [laughter] i have history going back with robert shorenstein a long time. so, the noticing process really needs adjustment. if it's not broken already. if people that really are developers and paying attention don't get any notice, i don't understand that. it's one thing for me not to get a notice. when people like that don't get a notice, i think you pay attention. i can just eat dirt. but apart from that what peter said is absolutely correct. you have the ability to not approve the projects. these are discretionary actions that you're being asked to do with discretionary actions

comes discretion. i don't consider dbi to be the last word on fee deferral ~. does this commission have the ability to say, if you want something, you should give us something? part of it probably is you should give continuance to let the neighbors become aware of the project. but you should also ask sales force -- sales force, really huge company. kill roy, really huge. these are billion dollar companies. why do we have to struggle with getting affordable housing money out of these people? it's one thing for the residential builders and people like that that are low developers coming before you and saying, really it's going to screw us up totally if we have to pay these fees in

advance. if kill roy can say that with a straight face and sales force can say that with a straight face, i would roll over. they are not going to be broken by paying into affordable housing, but they're affecting the ability of affordable housing developers to build affordable housing. so, i would say ask the city attorney. exercise your discretion, and your discretion is if you don't like the project, you can turn it down. you don't want to give the extra floors, you don't want to give the extra exception, you don't have to. and i think you should do the right thing and continue it as well for [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? okay, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, a question for staff first on the noticing issue. i mean, i'm down there almost

every night exercising, going by there and i saw the signs. but i was looking for them because i knew it was coming up. but how about noticing or has notice been sent to the neighborses? >> thank you, commissioner. as with many types of projects we have, there is basically a three-prong noticing approach. there is the published ad that goes in the newspaper 20 days prior to the hearing. the posters that you saw inside and there were two posters for this particular project, one for each frontage at mission and fremont. finally there is the mail notification which was sent out also 20 days prior to the hearing. all property owners within 300 feet and we were able to verify [speaker not understood] of this issue that mail was sent to 45 fremont street associates specifically. so, all three of those notification methodologies were satisfied in this case. >> okay, thank you. then i have a question for project sponsor in regards to the fee issue.

now, correct me if i'm wrong, but there's a difference between the fees that were deferred on the first approval because it was approved during the period of time the fee deferral was in place. and the addition is happening now during a time when the fee deferral is no longer in place. so, is there a case or do you agree that perhaps the fee should be assessed on the upper additional floors? >> we were aware that the fee deferral program had expired. we were not aware that dbi took a position that because the project has already started that we could, in fact, defer our fees, which means that we had expected that we would probably be paying them. i have not had a thorough

conversation with the developer who generally developers opt to defer if they can. my own view is all that deferral money is going to be paid and that cycle is going to be starting soon. so, the deferral doesn't really mean that much. we're paying all the fees whether they're deferred or not. >> thank you, mr. rubin. >> i don't know if that -- >> that's exactly my point. some speakers intimated that the fees were not being paid. even during the deferral, it was a deferral. and there you're getting them at a later time rather than at the times it was in place. i mean, this is subject to interpretation by the city attorney or others as to whether the fees would all be deferred or whether the fees for the lower part of the building would be deferred, although they may be coming into play fairly soon with the deferral gone and then the other ones might be due at an earlier time. but i don't think we can answer that question at this time.

>> i can't, but i could speak to the request for the continuance if i were asked a question about it. >> yeah, what about the continuance? >> one of the -- when i said this is a bit of an unusual circumstance but not an untoward one, one of the unusual aspects of it is we're building a building right now. we need to know whether we're going to add those floors or not. we can't really wait. we have to account for them which is why we've been working hard to get back to the planning commission as soon as we could. and i say this with the most respect possible, but, you know, because i know tom and bob for many, many years and have worked with them on a variety of issues. i thought tom was going to say when he started talking about posters that there weren't any. he said they were there. so -- >> thank you, mr. rubin. precisely my point. i mean, i think that we have a

company that has decided to lease an entire new building and most of the buildings are spec. this is not spec. so, that's something we should be very happy about. and the fact that they actually need more square footage than what it was approved is even a better sign. so, it's employment, it's jobs, it's taxes, it's a lot of good theirstion and we don't want to jeopardize it by, you know, i'm not saying you to approve it just because of those things. but if it is appropriate, then i think we should do it at the earliest possible time because construction has begun. the suring is being done. they can modify the foundations to make them structurally sound for the building up to 30 floors. and i always thought, you know, i thought it was a great design when it came up a couple years ago. why a dumb pi four-story building with these larger buildings around it? actually the taller building is architecturally a lot more pleasant.

it makes it look thinner. it makes it fit in with the other buildings. and from being down there a lot. i'm trying to figure out where you can see the sky when you're standing on the street. because even if there's no building there as is now the case, you're blocked off by the buildings around there. so, you're really not going to see much sky. maybe if you're up in another building looking beyond this there might be a possibility there would be a view corridor somewhere, but i can't figure out where it is. and also in terms of the appropriate height, you've got 1100 square feet transbay tower thattiontion going to be starting any time. you have 700 feet plus. i guess it's 2 81 fremont. i expect -- i'm not sure of the exact address, but it's ron paul building that's a couple more blocks up the street. and i understand there also has been a sale made and there's towers that are being planned, although they haven't been approved by us, but they're zoned for areas around 350 fremont that would also go into that same. so, i think this building is very modest in height in

comparison to what's being proposed and approved and that was kind of what we planned when we did this whole transbay, that there would be a series of towers. so, i'm in favor of the project. it makes total sense to me to see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. to those who came and testified about the increase in height and were concerned about it, i think that that time passed a long time ago when we approved the transit center district plan. and i don't know if you're aware of that. this particular lot is zoned for 700 feet and that is not the endv of it because the transbay tower is acting as a central point that's going to be the tallest building. but then there are heights that have already been -- at least in zoning, not the buildings that are approved in a cascading fashion down from

there, 700, 600, 500 feet, they're all around you guys. and if you want to call that a done deal, i would say it was a done deal in plan. but as commissioner antonini mentioned, there will be further approvals for the actual building designs themselves. but they have -- they will be coming in and i can't say whether they'll go to the full height, but they do have the right to go up to those heights that have already been zoned so that's just by way of background and shorenstein knows all of this. ~ that. that's not their particular concern, i don't think. it's just the noticing aspect and probably not having enough time to look at it. but on the other hand, the other issues of shadow, perhaps wind, that was also studied in the transit center district plan, environmental impact report which has also been certified. so, in some ways i think that -- i can't speak for the rest

of the commissioners, but those issues probably, in our minds, have already been vetted and kind of taken care of, if you want to put it that way. i don't have a problem with the additional six stories. i think some of us would even like to have seen it go higher, but we're getting what we're getting. the only question i have, let's just settle this. if the city attorney can weigh in on the fee deferral, i understand -- here's my view. i think the fee deferral applies to the project as it's being constructed. i think the fee deferral does not apply to the six floors that we, if we approved, because i think the action is taken today. if it's taken today or whenever we continue it, and the fee deferral program is not in effect. and because it's the same property, you know, and it's

already been approved once and it's part of that, may introduce a separate interpretation. but normally i think when projects come in, they're subject to the rules and regulations as they are in place at the time. but i defer to the city attorney. >> deputy city attorney [speaker not understood]. so, the fee deferral program you're referring to was established by legislation by the board of supervisors which then got legislation lapse. but when it was established, the department of building inspection was establisheds as the city department that would administer the fee deferral program. so, the question of whether the project is in the fee deferral program or not and what portion of the project it applies to is really within the primary jurisdiction of the department of building inspection which would make the determination of what's appropriate for this project.

>> slightly wrongly, the program lives in the admin code, it did you tellxctiontionv live in the planning code. admin code gave that jurisdiction to dbi. i will say that the additional floors that are proposed to you today are paying the transit center impact fees which were not in place when the original project was approved and permitted. >> as a follow-up question to that, perhaps to mr. rubin's project sponsor. in terms of the deferred fees, when do you expect those to be paid to the city? because those are based on, is it occupancy? >> deferral fees. >> the first certificate of occupancy. we expect that to be early 2015. >> okay, thank you. >> just to clarify. so, the transit center fees

would be -- they're at the current height or at the proposed height? based on -- >> transit center for the additional floors. the original building was before the transit center plan was adopted. >> got it. >> commissioner hillis. >> so, i would agree with commissioner sugaya. i'm supportive of the six floors [speaker not understood] the 700 feet we have zoned for. my question back to the fee deferral, i'm confused. the staff report, i believe the project sponsor's understanding before today was the fees on the additional six floors weren't deferable. you were going to pay those. is that correct? the new transbay fees -- >> that is what i said. that was our assumption. we've learned today that they are deferable. and being a developer, we'd like to defer them. [laughter]

>> right. but if the economics of the deal were based on the fact you weren't going to defer them, i mean, we were going to get them -- will you continue on with the deferral or are you willing to nonapply for the deferral for the remaining six floors? >> it's not something that i'm free to simply say. i need to talk to the clients at kill roy and make that decision. they certainly don't want to create ill will with the planning commission, but it's an economic decision. >> right, it's economic, although you're basing whatever pro forma you did in the economic space of not deferring the fees. you know, that's the report we got. i didn't want to continue this. you want to get the project entitled and built and i think you have support on this commission to get it built. we all came into this hearing with the understanding you weren't going to defer fees or they weren't deferable. why don't we just say you're not going to defer them. [laughter]

>> realizing that, yes. >> good evening, commissioners and director ram. i'm chris with kill roy realty. i'm sawyer, we will not defer the fees on the additional stories. >> okay, appreciate it. [speaker not understood]. >> commissioner wu. >> i think that addresses the issue i was asking. i was going to ask the city attorney if we could make a suggestion to dbi what they want to do. >> [speaker not understood] city attorney. you can give recommendation to dbi as to how they interpret their fee deferral program. >> to the maker of the motion, are you interested? >> but they've agreed not to defer. either way. >> so, this is probably one of the few projects that will have this situation anyway because it's just they're coming back for this. i think other projects will either be clean in coming to us

now or they already have their fees deferred and they won't be coming back and asking us. >> we can move to approve the project sponsor not to seek the fee deferral for the additional six [speaker not understood]. >> second. >> i guess i have a question about that, though. do we happen to know of other project sites that were zoned that could come back to us a second time around? >> regarding the fee deferral program? >> yes, projects we might have approved already in that area who -- the previous entitlements but were part of the transit district plan per se but now could get additional height and wouldn't come back to us. >> oh, additional height. >> commissioner borden, one project that comes to mind with a similar case would be the 41 that he'll a street project. that being a residential project is not necessarily subject to the same extensive types of fees, but it is subject to some fees ~ and they have submitted an application for an increased height over what they were entitled for. that's the only one that comes to mind immediately. there may be others out there, but that's the next example i

could point to. >> okay, great, great. i know you addressed the notice issue. i want to be respectful. the standardized procedure that we do for all projects basically for this one as well? >> that is correct. it's the same notification for procedures that we follow for all projects. on the specific subject of the mailed notice, typically project sponsors will go to a company to collect the records and perform sort of the [speaker not understood] mailing addresses of everybody within the 300 foot radius. but those companies pull from assessor records. so, whatever the assessor record is on file for particular property owner, that is the label that results and then that's where our mail gets sent out to. >> could i ask the director would you look further into commissioner borden's question? i think it's a good one. one off the top of your head,

it's only a few others -- there were more than a few. what we could be taking an action on could be precedent seth. i just want to make sure there isn't a host of opportunities there to come back to us here. >> i think on the projects you've approved, 41 tehema did not max out the height limit but 141 [speaker not understood] did max out. they could [speaker not understood] additional floors. other projects in the transit center you have not approved yet. >> okay. i'm curious. these are the ones that are on the fringe that may be opted out not to participate in the transit center plan that could be coming back to -- >> i guess conceivably the other one is 222 second. they did not express any interest being added to the pipe. i guess that is conceivable. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second on the floor to approve the project with conditions recognizing that the project sponsor will not be seeking a fee deferral for the additional floors. office of management and budget that motion commissioner anni