>> so, just to be clear, what you're saying is two-year extension. and that two-year mark, if think didn't make that two-year mark, they'd have to come back to the planning commission? >> correct. >> correct. within that interim period, they'd update the design, work with staff on the design and come back as an informational item. >> are you asking specifically that it go to the commission or preservation staff? >> preservation staff. >> staff, yeah. >> i would, i would actually suggest that you make that a joint discussion. >> on the informational item? >> maybe if i may, one possibility would be to ask that the architectural review committee of the hpc redo it rather than a -- >> right, thank you, that's perfect. so, i would move that. >> i'll second it.

>> commissioner antonini. >> i'm fine with the motion. just the clarification that we would get an informational presentation with the architectural renderings once they're agreed upon between project sponsor and hpc architectural and planning staff, i think, in conjunction. >> i'm told i think that because the hpc is a separate charter body, you can't require them to do something. you can request that the project sponsor go to their committee. >> [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> we're sitting here squibling asking what we're being asked to do. [multiple voices]

>> you work with the staff, you come back -- >> we urge you to -- [multiple voices] >> come back in four months. >> so, commissioners, i do have a motion and second on the floor. to condition that the project be extended for a two-year period only and ultimately at the end of that two-year period if there needs to be another extension that they have to come back to the planning commission to request that. and the design return as an informational item to the planning commission after it has been reviewed by preservation staff and with a request that the historic preservation commission architectural review committee provide design review comments. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. commissioners, it will place you on item 16 a and b for case

no. 2013.0276bx for 350 mission street request for an allocation of square footage and request for determination of compliance. >> good afternoon once again, guy with planning staff. [multiple voices] >> i'm sorry. we need to make an announcement. sorry. >> president fong and commissioners, i need to ask you support my recusal from hearing this project. the city attorney has advised me that my previous long-term tenure [speaker not understood] and my position as a former associate partner would create a potential conflict of interest as seen by the public. so i'd like to recuse myself. >> thank you. is there a motion? >> move to recuse commissioner moore. >> second. >> on that motion to recuse commissioner moore, commissioner antonini? excuse me, commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. >> commissioner wu? >> aye.

>> commission president fong? >> aye. >> that motion passes 5 to 1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. >> i personally don't think it's a conflict. so, that's why i voted that way. >> commissioners, again, i'm kevin guy with planning staff. the request before you is to amend a previously approved project at 350 mission street in order to add additional office space. in 2011 the commission approved a project to demolish an existing four-story building and construct a new 24-story 350-foot office building containing approximately 340 square feet of office uses, 1,000 square feet of ground floor retail space, or 23,500 square feet of subterranean parking. this project is currently under construction. so, today's request is to amend the previous conditional use -- i'm sorry, office allocation

and downtown project allocation approvals, to add up to six additional floors of office space. the project as amended would reach up to 30 stories with a height of 455 feet to the top of the mechanical parapet. the amended project would contain over 420,000 square feet of office uses and 450 square feet of office space. the floor area that would need to be developed would be based on the anticipated needs which is salesforce.com. aside from the additional height and square footage, the basic form and design of the building would not change. however, these revisions require that the commission reconsider the previously granted planning code exceptions for separation of towers, ground level wind currents and bulk level limitations and grant new exception for the number of freight loading spaces. i would be happy to discuss the specifics of any of these exceptions in further detail. i should note that following publication of your packet staff received some correspondence c.b. richard ellising concern with the addition. these contend that the scale

would overwhelm mission street and would attribute to a canyon effect that would diminish light and views of the sky in the area. several communications also offer the program should be disqualified from the fee deferral program that is administered by the department of building inspection. i should note that i have consulted with pamela levin at dbi on this particular issue. she has indicated that because of the previously entitled project, was entitled and received permits prior to the expiration of that fee deferral program, there is nothing about a change in scope to the project that is being requested today that would disqualify it from deferral of fees. so, in other words, the project has and will continue to qualify for the fee deferral program. even though the program ended in july. so, in conclusion, staff does support the request for the additional square footage. the project fulfills the goals and objectives of the transit sin term plan to concentrate office development near the future transit center with an

intense walkable urban context. the height is compatible with the various scale in the area and the situated substantially lower than the height limit permitted by the underlying 700 foot height limitation as well as the thousand foot zoning of the transbay tower nearby. i'm available for any questions that you may have. thank you very much. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. >> marathon was not by design, coincidence. good afternoon, commissioner fong, director ram, members of the commission. i'm jim rubin, rubin junius and rose representing kill roy again. you remember we were 333 brannan as well. just happens these were on the same calendar. we are going to show you an abbreviated architectural presentation of the project itself. however, late 2011, five of the seven of you saw that project before so what i'm going to do

is spend a little bit of time talking about the unusual situation that we're in. it's not untoward at all, it's just unusual because we're here asking to add height to a building that's already under construction. what actually happened is that the property was zoned by a german pension fund named gol and they started building this project meaning they started the entitlement prosis for this project under the old zoning and then the tcdp started to get studied and gol elected to continue under the old zoning, try to get their project entitled, and probably built as a competitive advantage for one thing, ahead of the enactment of the tdcp. it was a reasonable decision to make at the time. there was a full e-i-r done for that project. it was entitled by you in 2011 at 24 stories. those that were here will remember when they see the lobby area and the interactive

wall, that it was enthusiastically supported at the commission at that time. subsequent to that, two critical things happened. the tcdp got enacted and rezoned that footage or lot for 700 feet. i will add the septment process. the department pushed hard for us to go to the additional height and wanted to see a taller building. david wall whos what the representative of gol wanted to continue on with the existing zoning. so, the tcdp passed which would now allow 700 feet at that location and gol sold the property to kill roy. kill roy has started construction. they broke ground four or five months ago. some of you may have been at the groundbreaking. they also negotiated a full building deal with sales force. sales force has indicated in the interest of adding some volume to the building, the building itself can take maybe 3 to 6 floors which is why

we're stuck with that. if we were starting over we'd probably try to build to 600 feet, but we can't. we have a building that's under construction. so, that's the situation we are in. the good news is we can do this. there is rezoning out there that a lows for much higher height and you could approve us for up to six additional floors. and as i said, it's driven by sales force if we don't get the addition, we won't build it and sales force won't have it. but we think it is the right location for increased volume. it's the right location for sales force there across the street as well. they're up about a million feet there and they will be directly across the street from the transit center. so, i'm going to turn it over to steve sobel from skid more to show you, remind you i guess is probably a better way of the building itself. actually, before i do, i wanted

to -- this is a -- i don't know if you can see. we had some graphics, too, that will show up on your screen. the millennium, this is the millennium building. our building is going upright here. right now it will come to about there. if we get the additional floors it will go to from. ~ there. i don't think we're changing the environment particularly for the millennium people. they're completely surrounded but buildings that are actually taller, so. i don't know if i left you enough time, but --

>> good evening, commissioners, i'm steve sobel with [speaker not understood] and i'm the project director for the 350 mission project. thank you. president fong, commissioners, i will just walk you through the project. okay. [speaker not understood] discussed the project sits on the northeast corner of fremont and mission street. it is centrally located in the transit center. today the market street transit 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 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 deve