The Exchange on Sixteenth Street Rendering

Kilroy Realty’s appeal of the $6.4 million Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) which the City has imposed on the 680,000-square-foot Exchange on Sixteenth Street project was denied by San Francisco’s Board of Appeals last night in a 3-2 vote, but a rehearing could be requested.

Kilroy’s 3.1-acre development, which will include enough space for around 3,500 Millennial employees and parking for 680 cars, will rise up to 12 stories in height upon Mission Bay Block 40 (a.k.a. 1800 Owens), just south of 16th Street and east of Interstate 280, two blocks from the approved, but legally challenged, Chase Center.

And while the 1800 Owens Street site has already been graded and prepped, Kilroy’s dispute of the City’s Transit Impact fee has delayed permitting for construction.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Oh Dear

    Wanna play? Gotta pay!

    • Posted by seriously

      …and continue to drive up the cost of office space and construction. people think that developers have infinite money, but it all has to come from somewhere…

      • Posted by Anon12

        Exactly. money essentially is transferred from the citizenry to lavish pensions.

        • Posted by moto mayhem

          agree that the pension system needs some attention

      • Posted by Elitist Pig

        So they don’t pay, and then the transportation system gets stressed to the point of failure. Who pays then?

        • Posted by Dave


          This many workers plunked down in that area is only going to worsen transit.

          I don’t like to see major office construction like this outside the business core. Its an odd place – right next to the freeway,

          That said, I really like the design. A mix of different looking building and not one monolith. The building in thr foreground with brick lower floors and more modern top floors is especially nice.

        • Posted by Government Shrinkage

          The city has a $9.9 billion dollar budget. For 850,000 people.

          • Posted by Jake

            That is untrue and deeply misleading. The SF FY 2015-16 budget is $8.9 billion and large amounts of the SF budget are not for the residents of SF, including the water supply for nearly 2 million non-SF residents. This has been pointed out to you by me on Socketsite as recently as last July.

            Also, TIDF accounts for only 1-2% of the SFMTA budget, even in these boom times.

          • Posted by Mr E

            The city AND COUNTY has a $9.9 billion dollar budget.

            Not to say we cannot do better, but lets be honest about our baseline.

          • Posted by Jake

            $8.9 billion budget, according to the official budget from the mayor (pdf at namelink): “The proposed budget for the City and County of San Francisco (the City) for fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 is $8.92 and $8.96 billion, respectively.”

          • Posted by Schaetzer

            Very misleading. The budget for SF funds both city and county functions, unlike ANY other jurisdiction in California. For example, police dept & sheriff dept, courts, the list goes on.

      • Posted by Orland

        What is this, 1972? Only at SS could there be any question of imposing impact fees as a cost of doing business

      • Posted by moratorium

        We have too many jobs as it is without enough housing. If San Francisco and the Peninsula don’t want to build housing then they should stop adding office space.

        Our bridges are at capacity, the transbay tube is at capacity, 280 and 101 are at capacity, Caltrain is at capacity. We shouldn’t be adding jobs. We should be adding housing for everyone that already works here so we’re not paying upwards of 4k a mo for a 1 bedroom.

        Screw a moratorium on housing, we need a moratorium on jobs.

        [Editor’s Note: That was actually the intent of Proposition M which many in the industry hope to overturn.]

        • Posted by Orland

          Really! Is there actually a serious movement to do so much less a realistic chance of succeeding?

        • Posted by moto mayhem

          yes, lets kill jobs! brilliant idea!

  2. Posted by Bobby Mucho

    I have no idea how all of this wasn’t handled 1-2 years ago? Seems completely absurd how many projects in this city come across delays this late in the process.

  3. Posted by Notcom

    What exactly makes it a “campus for Millenials” ?? Are they going to be checking ID’s at the door(s), or have all the informational signs printed on the ground so people checking their phones will see them , or something ??

  4. Posted by Elitist Pig

    That is a little disturbing, how did they get two votes in favor?

    • Posted by MukDutch

      Posturing during the initial vote knowing one member was abstaining? SF loves the stall process

  5. Posted by Orland

    More good news.

    Now stop jerking around and build it!

  6. Posted by Mark

    Cool looking buildings.

    • Posted by Frisco

      The front one is strange, designed to look like an adaptive reuse project even though it’s all new.

  7. Posted by Fishchum

    The black top part of the building in the foreground made me think of the Jawa’s Sandcrawler.

  8. Posted by MrTibbs

    Interesting that it was a 3-2 vote — wonder who disagrees and why.

    Echoing some of the sentiments above, this City is SO flush with cash and yet we see none of that in infrastructure or quality of life improvements. Where the Hell does it all go?

    • Posted by Orland

      Just a little bit of typical hyperbole. Consider just the fact that the entire MUNI Metro fleet is about to be replaced and expanded.

    • Posted by Orland

      As to the sentiments in your first paragraph, the first SS item on this issue (1/25/2016) fleshed out the developer’s arguments which may have persuaded the 2 commissioners that the fee claimed should not be assessed against this particular project under the historical circumstances presented.

      Certainly, there cannot be serious thought on the Board against transit impact fees generally.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles