corridor and in the future the transbay transportation corridor. the access by pedestrian is both by the street and also by the presidio that runs on the east side of this project. this is the rendering that jim showed you with the building as it is designed today at 24 stories. and this shows the increase of the up to six floors. again, just a bird's eye view of the same. today we're at about 375 feet and the adjacent structures are all taller. 350 beale is slightly lower. and here we have the up to 6-floor version at 455 feet.

again, nominally slight change in the height of the building. this is the existing elevation of the building. this is the extended elevation. a rendering back to the building down fremont. and a view of the building down mission. in each case it shows the existing condition on the left and the proposed extrusion on the right. the building is unique in the sense that it sits directly across from the transbay center and we've looked at creating a really unique and public space at the lobby level, a 52-foot lobby, which is focused on pedestrian use. this is a shot inside that shows the ability to move freely through the lobby and also some amphitheater type seating to support the retail.

thank you. >> okay, thank you. okay, opening it up to public comment. i have a few speaker cards. rita alber. gita vash. paula [speaker not understood]. and daria venisee. good afternoon, commissioners. paula pratt low and gita had to leave. we are not familiar with your unique process, so, it's been quite an education, our first time here. and, so, i'm here. my name is rita [speaker not understood]. i'm a resident at 301 mission street, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and to communicate via e-mail. we obviously respectfully disagree with the developers and with this plan. please understand that although the e-mails you received from owners and from residents of 301 mission street in our

appearance today is triggered by concern about a particular building, 350 mission street, our overarching concern is on the well designed and inviting new transit center neighborhood for everyone. i personally am involved with the community benefit district. we care greatly about this transit center area. we look forward to the rooftop park and all other buildings that are being developed in the area. however, as approved, the current height provides a significant addition to the downtown office space with certain controlled impacts and in line with the building adjacent to it on mission and beale street. as proposed, we feel strongly that it will exacerbate adverse impacts further limiting visible sky and light the majority of the day, create shadow and tunnel effect as well as a wind corridor along the sidewalks in the area, including additional congestion and debris. [speaker not understood]. although a lovely design, there

is no setback or open public space interior. exterior r bull beingv space. it closes off the entire block on the north side of mission street. all the buildings abut the sidewalk. the current approved plan for 24 stories balances the need for downtown office space with maintaining the quality of life, reducing excessive building -- bundling of high-rise buildings of similar size, and keeping the important transit center as a well designed attractive and inviting urban environment. this is in context of many other large projects in that area that have been approved for this area. and many of them -- the owners in the area have relied on the current plan in making -- in choosing their homes and where they live in this neighborhood.

the proposal to amend we feel will reduce the enjoyment for workers, visitors, and residents and ultimately affect businesses in the area. many of the other projects, as i understand, in this area have been designed and approved with setbacks and open exterior public spaces. mission street is going to be a tunnel corridor with the additional height. at this point, as we understand it, it will be above the height of the building next to it on beale and fremont and almost at the height of the building behind it completely blocking it. and the skylight coming from that direction, from the north. >> ma'am, your time is up. good, i'm done. thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much. [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 --