raised was brought up at the hearing department and what looked at by the staff and the attorney and it was approved unanimously and with confidence i'm available for questions >> thank you. any public comment? okay commissioners no public comment that. >> well, i would move to deny the appeal so - >> it was - >> on the basis in my opinion we should deny it on the basis it's untimely. as the period for appeals has expired so we don't need the merits >> you're talking about the appeal period for the motion this was timely filled the

motion itself was timely. >> okay. well. okay. so i would move to deny the appeal >> i think - >> oh, okay. >> looking at the top of. >> that's okay. if they're not in the room they're not in the room. >> i just saw her face. >> yes, we have call. >> we thought you had not appeared. >> i'm sorry. so president wong >> let's start over.

>> okay. so the items been called ms. hesitating take care. >> i'm sue hesitating take care i'm an attorney i brought this appeal in my own name because i drafted the office allocation program in 1986. it's the law in san francisco it's an amendment to the planning code. the sections around 325 are the office allocation principles. it does not require the city to approve a project. it is all optional and neither is the 309 section. people begin by division are asking for something special when we ask for is an office allocation and an exception to

the planning code. what happened was originally the project at 350 mission went through the planning commission and the e f r process. i commented and it was approved in 2011 while i was unavailable to attend. because it maxed out they couldn't build more. when the city agreement the transit city plan it was included and the f ar had been more genius than under the downtown plan that were a developer decided to go back and ask for another 6 stories. in the middle of all this process the city adapted a process.

besides the office allocation process i was heavy heavy heavy involved in getting all the fees imposed me city. the transit fee, affordable housing fee and childcare fee. the organizations that i represent spent 5 long years getting those in place before we did prop m. and the whole genes of that legislation of the various legislation were to recognize that when an office building came online the people in the office building the tenants in the office space would have an impact on the city they would use muni we said them to. they would make a demand for housing and childcare.

the whole crust of legislation you've got to have things ready when the building opens. we had a surprise an office approval prop m was addressed to address the ups and downs of the office approvals. we don't dispute the fact that the developer used the provision that was absolutely proposed because small developers were having a hard time getting financing. the legislation was drafted so everyone was take advantage of it. the predecessors signed the papers what happened what there's a fee deferral. there's no transit it would be available after it opens.

because i'm also the head of the nonprofit that's involved with the affordable housing corporations i'm extremely aware of the fact that you can't buy today, the amount of land for affordable housing you could buy three years ago why? because of the influx of office space and the up skwail of the rent had made the land more valuable. so this left us this choice and it purchased my but the because we struggled for developers to pay to help mitigate affordable housing development and transit and childcare. in the irony of all this is the

headquarters of a developer who is in the front page of the paper being so generous he was telling people to do more he didn't do the minimum. sales force a hypocrite and now how much their saving by shifting the burden onto the affordable housing community and muni by deferring their fees is much more than they will ever had helping out junior high students. i found this appeal to say no. there comes comes a point you're supposed to use the provisions anlook at it your discretion. the board of supervisors has discretion you have discretion

that goes beyond everyone because of the charter. that everyone who approves an office allocation has the discretion to say no. and i have been in the hearing room in the past with planning commissions have said no and to office development. it don't matter how much their entitled they're not entitled thank you very much >> ms. hesitating take care i have a question. >> yes. i'm trying to understand your concerns isn't that true the fees will be paid. >> yes. because the fee didn't take a look at the price escalation of the land. >> i get that. >> and the land is what the value is to the funding for

affordable howard's but but that wasn't take into account in prop m. >> by the time prop m was on the ballot we had label mechanisms in place for the fees. it was a instructional to get that. we have an entire fee structure that's predicted on observe building and supply of transit and a affordable housing and a childcare has to be there when it opens. that law preceded prop m. i understand that but i'm saying to you >> you're concerned about inflation of land valuable that was not written into the law. >> no, it was - and a let me finish the fiascos are deferred

and there's a surcharge for deferral but that speaks to the law; correct? >> an original law the fiascos are paid at the time you start construction. >> i understand that i'm talking about the current law. >> it's gone back to that lay. >> but my question is there's in provision for the concerns your ray's. >> i would love it if you told people they should do it. >> that was what i was trying to clarify. >> i assume you said to make our argument now. >> you have the microphone. >> yes. i am raising the computer here.

all right. good evening, commissioners dan with rubbing event e benefit and rose i'm representing kilroy reality their current building an office building at the northeast corner kitty-corner from the sales force the cities largest growing employers is going to be taking the whole building. it was unanimously firmed by the board of supervisors on appeal. it was also firmed by this board. well, i'll just skip since the slow down are not going in the order i intended. tonight ms. hesitating take care

is asking you to over turn the 6th edition to the project. that edition was not part of the approval because the zoning was not restricted and now it they planned the decent to the area and it will add the impact fees that take advantage of the decent that has to a pay. the outline for the offer turning is unprecedent and asking you to approve the 6 stories they meet the standards. what she's doing is appealing because kilroy is taking advantage of a program by the board of supervisors to deter fees and when the board of supervisors adapted that program they balanced the expediting public interests that ms.

testing e hesitating take care is citing here tonight. this board has discretion to prove of disapprove projects. what ms. hesitating take care is asking for and i'll quote her discretion is denied to have further approval for the 20 story believe shows asking you to pencil lithiasis liz for what the board of supervisors allowed them to do. you have discretion but no where in any city ordnance can a developer be denied because of not paying fees peril. this would be like the police

imup and down someone's car for a parking ticket because the parking ticket was not paid but not due yet. that time has passed under the fee ordinance ms. hesitating take care and anyone else for that matter had 15 days for the site permit to challenge it's fiascos. that window closed more than a year ago and f even if an appeal was filled the borders jurisdiction is strictly limited to whether or not the magnet calculation is correct. there's no jurisdiction for this board to say you can't participate in the deferral fee program. you can't disapprove projects

because of they're past participation in the fee program. just to be clear there's no question that kilroy is going to pay the fees for this project. it's already paid some of them it's a matter of timing. under the fee impact fees was due when the first construction document was issued and those fees were paid for 1 that million dollars. and the next is for the certificate of occupancy in 2015. so all the sound and furry is about whether the fees get paid within a couple of months or a year from then. as for the additional steroids and note that's the permit that's in front of you tonight.

the dbi and the city attorney's have said this is not - the fees are 3 and a half million dollars that are not due. kilroy is a direct response agreed to pay the fees earlier. kilroy is legally entitled for the fees in 2015 when it pulls the site permit for the addition in the next couple of months. this is merrily listed in the commissions approval on the screen. this appeal is in the way of no good deed going unpunished. we've had two requests to pay the fees early. the appeal is legally groundless

although there are concerns but legally speaking i don't think you have a choice but to reject the appeal. thank you very much >> i'd like to ask you about the standard under 320 of the planning code and i find - i don't know obviously you didn't argue but as i understand it we have board authority hero to determine whether or not the additional 6 floors it appropriate. my understanding it is the language that needs to be met whether this development promotes public welfare convenience net and i'd like to hear you on that standard

>> yeah. i mean, i would say first, the planning commission made detailed findings and those are in the materials in front of you. as far as serving little public convenience and night. in the one saves force is going to take the entire building. sales force is one of the most feast growing companies in san francisco. they pay good salaries and this is - they've taken most if not all of the fremont building across the street. it's a dime company 33 and this building is an important part of their presence in san francisco. i'd point to the impact fees that the project is paying as of

early 2015 will be going to affordable housing and to infrastructure and to fund public open space in the transit area. the impact fees for point promise are around $14 million. that's not chump chance. those will allow the city to the evidence will then show funds from the state and government. it promotes the transit center as a dense walkable district that is the focus for tech jobs in the bay area and recreational. >> i have another question.

is there another development in the general vicinity that's going to reach significantly more force. i don't know why i heard this is there going to be a hundred story >> the city corner is the trans bay terminal and a adjacent is the hines project and the tower and that's going to be one thousand at all it's roughly 2 and a half times this building. there are 8 hundred and 50 feet proposed in the neighborhood >> can you tell me how many stories a standard like your giving me feet you're talking about in terms of your building 24 stories -

>> 24 stories plus you know the planning commission authorized an additional 6. >> so when your talking about in the vicinity how many stories. >> between 45 and 65 i would say. >> okay. thank you. >> i have the same question as president wong about the 320 of the planning code but i think you answered that. the other question why initialing off ramp i answered my own question. why originally was there not a proposal for the 6 stories i think you said the zoning was different >> it was and it was tenant driven so the original building at 24 stories was entitled by a

developer but there was no tenant when it was approved so once sales force found the need that drove this. >> okay. thank you. >> 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