submitted >> today for the first time. >> that motion would require 4 votes. >> great. >> and do you want to state a basis for that. >> yes. i believe based on the letter from mr. tom the fact there are no changes i can tell from the plans and none have been pointed out to us i believe that today was the date for consideration of this matter and i don't see any prejudice to appellant from moving forward today. there's no good basis for a continuance. >> okay. so we have a motion then from commissioner to uphold this permit with revised plans.

>> the november 8th. >> the november 8, 2013, it's on the basis as stated in the record by commissioner tom (calling names) the vicinity is 3 to one for them to impose any actions so absent to any motion this permit is up told me e held as is. >> i don't think anybody wants that. i would make another motion to continue it for one week and in the interest of efficiency and justice and getting a proper

permit here that everyone can agree on. >> so we have a motion to continue this matter one week to november 20th. and no additional briefing is allowed nothing? on that motion (calling names) thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this matter is continued one week to november 20th >> thank you. thank you >> commissioners then i will call 7 a, b, c, and d. all four of them are filed by a

group against tang and they're related to four alteration permits. this is for the property on montgomery street on the partners llc to an alteration repair around doors and windowsills. this is for the property at 6568 joebz street protesting the issuance on september 12th to la violinists llc. to the bedroom replacement and install new forced air at a level down with a minimum of the

height between ground floor and first floor with matched window height. and the next is on 20th street protesting the issuance on september 18, 2013, to remodel a unit and add new closets and relocate kitchen fixtures and rerouting of mrmg and add new gas heart and finally, the next one 1 is 20th street protesting the issuance on september 20th. remodel unit 765 a add new closets and relocate kitchen imminence and rerouting lighting

fixtures as needed. those were filed by the same party we can start with the appellant. david gladstone are you in the room for the appellant? commissioners then i will ask if the permit holder is represented here together. please step forward >> good evening, commissioners john with the rubin rose on behalf of the permit holder. the four permits is minor in nature. 3 for renovation of the units and one for dry rot. the standards process the

process two contractors are licenses in construction practices in san francisco and they're here tonight. we don't have much more to add because the appellant hasn't filed a brief only unsafe demolition practices and work yoerp of the practices. i can go through the process. considering there's no justification for the four appeals we respectfully request you deny the appeal >> i have a question. when is the cost to our clients in the aggregate for the appeals filed >> this is a little bit afterward one to $2,000. >> total? >> for .

>> i see the cost you're coming here and severing any anti lazy for the delay. >> just want to a ballpark. >> sure this is for the holder. >> hi, i'm mr. rubbing at the scene i'm a consultant for the permit holder for two of the appeals. i think it's hard to estimate exactly but i'd say north of $20,000 both in he remembers of project delay costs >> that's two out of the four. >> yes. >> i was curious. >> any other departmental comments. do you know who or what citizens against pain is? >> we don't we can go into some

of the background you don't know i don't think that's an actual group. our understanding this is a man named d b coil for whatever reason has target my client and all those building appeals were that filed within one week even if each other. like i said all with the exact stage description the justification for the appeal working skwoerp of the appeal >> can you see any brief. >> no brief was filed. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffey >> commissioners, i judge wanted to add all the building permits are pretty simple fixing up building. the one permit on montgomery street that was language on the

end i returned to the site today and met with mr. rubbing at the scene and they hadn't started the process. if you can get a permit it's not the kind of language we want on a permit. tolysis 15 hundred stoves that needed replaced and there's no believe. the work hadn't started. if there is any issues during the process i'm sure the cloy can file a complaint. >> are you going to change the language in regards to the studs needed. >> after that we have a discussion this was the material around the window and any more than that we need a permit. >> you will clarify that in

writing. >> yes. yes. >> thank you. anything mr. t. any public comment. seeing none, commissioners the matters are submitted >> i'm going to deny all appeals based on the code of the dbi. gentleman >> we have a motion from the president to deny all four appeals and uphold all four permits on the basis their coincide compliant. on that motion to uphold (calling names) thank you. the vote is 4 to zero of all four of those permits are upheld on that basis >> thank you.

next item is item 8 appeal susan hesitating take care with motion holder mission llc. the project is at the 350 mission street related to planning codes sections 320 to 3 writing to office allocation of 80 thousand skeet of uses on top of the thirty story tower of up to 4 hundred and a 24 feet for the rooftop. and it is on for hearing today. i'm looking for the appellant who i don't see in the audience. is under anyone representing the appellant? >> oh, two in a row.

>> we can hear from the representative. >> dan with rose. i'm here on behalf of kilroy that is developing a 24 office story building on mission street >> before you continue do you know anything about the appellant representatives whereabouts. >> no. nothing. >> not showing up. i prepared a presentation but in the interest of our time i'll hold my comments since anybody's is here >> and you've not heard anything from mr. hesitating take care today. >> there was an e-mail about her having trouble downloading the calendar. >> uh-huh. >> we were off for a holiday

monday and i haven't heard since. >> so commissioners do you want to - how would you like to a move forward. >> we can take public comment. >> i don't know if you wanted to hear from - >> if you have something to say we'd welcome comment. >> just in case corey department staff i've not heard from the appellant all week so i'm not aware of her whereabouts. all i say is the one issue 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 and look 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