>> thank you. >> thank you. mr. t >> hi, greg t staff. thank you from the planning department. i'll be fairly brief. the project sponsor has laid out just to clarify the original approval that's not before you it's the additional 6 stories it was explained the reason the project sponsor requested that because there was a change in the zoning that removed the f r a requirement and a raised the height up to 7 six feet. and additionally the appellants primary issue regarding the

impact fees the portion of the development that was approved under the most recently planning action as the gentleman explained they have agreed to pay the impact fees early for - even though they could be deferred they didn't agree to retroactively pay the fees for the impact that fee it was under the agreement. also at the planning commission this issue was raised and we consoled with the city attorney and the ordinance is under the per view under the building inspection it's actually a program in the department and would be under their review. i'm available for any questions you may have

>> thank you. i think i'll again call for public comment on the merits any? seeing none, ms. hesitating take care you have 3 minutes of rebuttal >> just a couple of factual things dbi collects the fees not imposed the foe. if i had appealed the original project i would have had to know two years ago they were coming in withal additional 67 stories. i don't see how anyone would have had that in their mind. this is about the second bite of apple. yes, they, walk through those lanes and say oh, poor us we

took advantage of the city for our 24 stories and now we want to take advantage of the city for thirty stories. the fee deferral relents was stopped at the end of june. there was absolutely no discussions at that legislation of people using that to say oh, and we will extend it for buildings that come back for the second bite of the apple. the fees should be paid. they're not optional. there's no way that anyone in the city can say that fees are a gift, the developer did say that. he is absolutely wrong. they were requirement of the law. their requirement of law because we litigated this issue.

their mitigation measures that are required in santa fe san francisco and everyone has to pay them. if you did comply with the building sowed e code it's absurd you have to comply with the law and pay the fees. sales force coming in this and asking for the extra stories for their convenience is a bad actor in the city. and the deliverer is a bad actor. if you want to be a good developer they should say we're adults and don't need to be treated like little developers of projects out in the neighborhood and they want that treatment and they brag about their treatment.

and the tenant being a dynamic corporations that will get in there is part of the reason why we have the law. we have law to mitigate the impacts. and i come back to this obviously i have read the law and this is a discretionary action and discretionary should be used in this case. we can't say that they can't use this for 24 story building i'm not saying that. you come back and go to thirty stories you've got to pay in corporation big sales force you've got to pay into affordable housing my muni and childcare. thank you >> thank you. minnesota anything further you

have 3 minutes >> hi, tim for the project sponsor. it's a little bit odd. i'm having a hard time understanding what ms. hesitating take care is actually after. what would happen if you were to do what she proposed and deny the planning commissions or overturn the planning commissioners approval for the 6 stories. kilroy would continue building the building and pay the fees at the first certificate of occupancy in 2015. and none of the fees for the addition that aren't due until 2015 would get paid early that's another 3 and a half million dollars. so, you know, it seems like this

is a lens zero game. the appeal is after a lose will you proposition. again kilroy delivered fees on the 21st fees they built their financing around the assumption that those fees would be paid when finished. that's hard wire - and a times up. thank you >> anything further mr. t. >> just for one clarification regarding comboeps fees and collecting them. it's true the relevancy agency for calculating the fees but it's the department of building inspection who regulates when and how the fees are paid >> thank you. >> okay. then commissioners

the matter is submitted. comments? >> well, i will guess reply. affordable housing is in low apply many the city. i simply don't see how this appeal gets to this issues under the circumstances. ; right with regard to the appeal the appeal time has inspired to begin with even if it was appealable. i don't see any prejudice to having the developer pay that at the completion of the project.

the law didn't provide for land depression concerns if so the losers would have include that in the legislation. i'm inclined to deny the appeal. i also find under the planning code section 321 b the planning commission considered the factors that needed to be considered and prepared to uphold their findings >> anyone else? i find this to be difficult in the sense of the argument made by ms. hesitating take care not awhile i think morally and

ethicly excelling necessary to be heard here. and understood and appreciated. my concern here is this is technically not the approach that i would take to a persuade to moved in the favor of the appeal. i think we can all have different views of what is promoting the welfare what is convenient for the public and i don't necessarily agree with the occupancy for the additional floors support that at the same time i'm having difficulty

coupling coming up what the counter of what the planning has unanimously determined. it's a little bit it's not black and white here. i also find troubling talking about the payment of the fees at the beginning of the project as early in exchange there's an opportunity to deter i think paying it up front would show as the permit holder did for the additional 6 floors shows good faith and good community effort that's not an early thing but for the public interest and it's the law as well. deferral is not paying it on time it's giving is a break and

the appellant i toelth one hundred percent agree >> anyone else have anything. on the basis i stated i move to deny the appeal. i know we have to make certain finding that have to be read into the record >> but for your motion do i want to rely on the finding of the commission? >> yes. as well the fee deferral it's not timely filed it's not appealable. >> okay. then based on the planning commissions finding >> and also based on those alleged sequa finding i'm about to abbreviate and read.

if you could put that draft on the overhead. and if we could have the overhead showing the document. i will read the beginning which is having heard all the public testimony the board of appeals denies this protesting the issuance of the planning motion. and approves the planning commissions adoption to side codes granting an additional allocation for office use up to 6 stories of the 24 story tower with the roof height of 4 hundred and 24 feet on mission street as referred to the project. the first 4 reasons are restating the motion. and actions that the planning action took.

so item 5 based on the record as a whole it's not eliminated to the transit tower virile impact report and reporting program the materials and testimony presented and available to this board this board finds there is no new information and no substantial changes when the project as under taken that would change the planning departments review under the california quality act sequa by reference. and finally, item of the board adapts the sequa finding which includes the reflection and adapts the monitoring and recording program as a condition of approval and motion 18957 the sequa finding are included in

this reference. thank you for bearing with me. if you could call the roll please. we have a motion from the commission to deny this appeal and uphold the planning office allocation with finding as read into the record. on that motion (calling names) >> can you give me a minute and move on. >> okay (calling names) thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this motion by the planning commission is upheld with those finding. thank you >> okay. thank you. president fong should i go to

the - >> we need a very short break like 5 minutes.