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.

26 thoughts on “Appeal of Transit Impact Fee for Mission Bay Development Denied”
    1. …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…

        1. Exactly.

          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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

          3. $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.”

          4. 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.

      1. 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.]

  1. 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.

  2. 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 ??

  3. 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?

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

    2. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *