sequel matter settled. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is james. i live in san francisco. i was concerned about the designs, the architectural designs, the technology in the buildings, if they would be rather dated for 6 years and perhaps should be reviewed by the planning commission. it doesn't have to be extensive review but go over the details and say does this look good in san francisco right now. i know the museum is gutting the mural building which is less than 20 years old because already it's dated. i don't know if there is a mechanism for that, but

perhaps, you should be articulated. also, i think the time period was 18 months in 2007, i'm not sure, but looking back at these times it was a soft -- ending. not three years and in my opinion the approval process for 801 brannan street and they promised to build the same building but they did not. those are my thoughts. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. sean --rba. the

last five years have been very unique. money is starting to return and while we look at the landscape and cranes. those cranes are products of institutional money. it has no where else to go. it wasn't acceptable to put that kind of money into bank and get 1/2 and 3/4 of one percent. it helped us build some rental house. that's the only type of funding right now. it has not returned. it starting to but no where near the levels of back in 2007. those that don't qualify for the $25 million in additional money, they are fighting the predatory lenders.

what happened? the traditional lenders have gone under. new lenders brought in by the government have purchased those notes for 60 percent of the face value. quick example, a $2 million loan was bought buy a new bank for $1 million. they discount the i think interest rate to the new investor. the building community has been a victim and in the last 4 or 5 years trying to offend off these 3rd investor who has now bought this note for a low value and take this property because land loans have not returned to the market. that's why a lot of this is going on and i do believe the situation is getting better and i do believe there is more to be

discussed here, but if all that could be factored in it would be greatly appreciated. one other common law of today, there are some exceptions. there is one project where the project could not and did not move forward because dbi revoked the permit in error. they seekd men from this department trying to reinstate it because of this issue this department is struggling to help out. while i do support the law of the day there is should be some natural exceptions to that. there seems to be a lot of comments on sequel, smaller projects need a beginning, middle and a logical, rational ending, an ending that is not going to deprive anybody of their due process in san francisco, everybody values process. i think there is a natural logical break. >> thank you. any additional

public comments on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. we would like to say that we echo the statements of the first 3 speakers. eric, bernie and howard and test also. i think in the interest of fairness we should wait until we have decided what happens. it's not just human beings that rely and need sequel. it's also species like sir daniel that we might not see if we don't take time to smell the roses. having this service animal has meant a lot to me and to see what he does.

we talk about an environment we live on everyday. i understand the sentiments of these people. these are the risks we take. there are no guarantees in life. but taxes and the government is going to be there. and you can't escape your taxes or a lawyers bill or doctors bill. but in the interest of fairness so we are all on the same page so it would significantly reduce possible lawsuits, let's be on the same page and wait until we have decided what we will do with sequel. i know sir daniel would like that. thank you very much. >> additional public comment? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the public

weighing in and make comments and need to be carefully thought and answered and i would appreciate the thorough work. which is sometimes hard to understand when you just read the policy statement on its own without fully seeing the background. the suggestion i would like to make is when you speak about 190 projects for the last 8 years of which 85 which i think is a very good number since we have such a great depression are built under construction which leaves some without permits. i would say when my drivers license expires, i just can't drive. i'm looking at why people have not tried to at least restate that they are coming to the

point of expiration so there are circumstances as to why they are not proceeding. that's a comment to put on the record because there is certain kind of mutual performance when you extend the time. what i'm concerned about is out of 90 projects 50 being potentially considered for the stimulus policy, i would like to ask what type of projects are they, what size are they and where are they? and picking up on mr. king's comments we are picking up apples and oranges. i would like to know where these projects are and i'm just making this up in an area where we have large major changes in the downtown area like the district plan. we have projects which were an approved

in the absence understanding what that means altogether. i think we need to look at these projects again, bring them back and decide whether or not their physical appearance architecture and do and don't do the district what we want. the district boundaries are only lines in the sand. they don't mean anything because in the end everything has to work together. i would try to distinguish by location, size of project and understanding as to whether or not they are 8 years, 5 years or 3 years over due. the one thing i'm very concerned about and that's i would personally like to verify, if a title has been sold, in 9 percent of the case,

they would have to come back to this review. the projects that are approved mostly are today being sold on the appearance of architecture and on the elusion that we see it explained here. that's not the case. i have witnessed on my time projects are flipped and a new architecture and they were different from what was approved here. if you can find that, i would appreciate that. >> i have a question and it's kind of very similar to what commissioner moore was talking about. in general, i would assume that the projects that

we are looking at, many of those are the ones who have not been moved in general smaller projects. just a very high percentage of the larger ones many of them fall into the first category where they are under special sud's with their own defining periods and requirements. is that a good generalization about the projects that are fairly lower numbers are not necessarily. >> it's a good question and frankly tough to say. part of the reason why it's tough to say, we believe there is about 50 projects out there that could a veil themselves. we don't know for sure and this is an opt in program. so we might see them veil, but going

further there is a larger amount of projects that are subject to a legislative timeframe that will be unaffecteded by this policy. but there are others, hundred unit projects, 300 unit projects and 500 projects that could also be affected should they choose to enroll. >> i sundays understand what you are saying, all of them will not necessarily take advantage of it. i think it's good. maybe next year it wouldn't hurt to have that idea. i think the commissioners would benefit from seeing some of the projects. i was on the commission of the approval of all of these projects and it went through lots of processes and if we approved it then and

there are oftentimes peels appeals and this is the reason it's taken so long. in other words to take a bite out of the apple and say we liked it but we don't like it now. it's a fairly good policy. thank you. this has a lot to do with the reasons why these projects haven't moved forward. i spoke about appeals that seem to go on forever. sometimes there is a process. we've already talked about the economic cycle and there have been statements made and i think they are accurate from my experience that you add a considerable cost to the construction of housing unit in san francisco as much as a hundred thousand or more than that has been thrown out by our

process alone being repetitive even before we get to the starting gate the first time. so we are not arguing against protections, we need as many protections as we can have, but having seen many of these projects go through a lot of hurdles to get approved the first time and if they can take advantage and provide housing with lower cost, i think it makes a lot of sense. a couple other things. i think a period of time extending even further back makes sense than the 5 years. i throw out the date of january 1, 2003. i was seated in november of 2002, we were the first commissions who had the mayor and board of supervisors all of whom have to be approved by the board of supervisors. in that time you

have the protection that commission from the supervisors and even the approval process. no. 2, january 1, 2003 when the presence sequel took effect. after that time all sequel appeals had to go to their elective bodies and counties which is the board of supervisors. if you say 2003, 2005, all of these projects approximately a little over 10 years now have been playing on the same field and i think it would be fair to a vail, allow any of those to a veil themselves. a speaker went to speak about a project, about van ness and the one on

greenwich and van ness is built and there are a lot of consequence that come up. i never see anything but certainly if we had another project that is similar to the one on van ness and greenwich which is extremely well-built, i think and attractive and it's provided a lot of very good housing, i think that's the kind of thing we are looking at. so i am in favor of it and i don't -- also i'm concerned about the fact that sometimes we don't want to instigate a situation where we have to go through whole appeal process again and have a second bite at the apple for those that might not ago agree with a particular project. i think we need to consider what mr. moore talked about. architectural

concerns are something the commission ought to take a look at. we should know what changes have occurred because i have seen some projects we approved and when they were finally build, the detailing wasn't there, the relief on windows and things like that. that's important to know about, but i'm not sure that you have to have another hearing for that but you certainly should have informative architectural look at the new project. but i'm generally in favor. i think it has a lot of potential. >> commissioner phyllis. >> a couple questions, i think there are two issues. one the continuing policy of the 3 years and how we administer that and that stimulus policy. on the first one, what's the difference. i didn't see much

difference in here than what we currently do there is still that ambiguity that you have to get a project and this is on the 3 years either revoked or continued. if someone doesn't do that, 5 years into it, we are still in that same position, aren't we? >> you point out the changes is very subtle. at first it does appear to the the same but there is minor change in language that says if the project sponsors seek a building permit after the 3 year period has elapsed the only way staff is directed to conduct a hearing before you. if a sponsor declines to file that, staff will bring to you

to conduct a hearing. it provides the necessary clarity so we don't have a discussion or disagreement with sponsors or any other party moving forward. >> that's not the case, some project sponsors can get a building application within that 3 year period without revoking or them getting an an extension they will get a building permit? >> it's the conditional statements of improvement provides a little bit ambiguity. we suggest you adopt a resolution making it clear that's what you intended. >> okay. on that one, i think are there other options. 3 years seem short if we are going to revoke a permit. but

tying to mr. reynolds point can we revoke or would you always need to come back to revoke it. can we say in 5 years it's revoked unless it's continued. >> we've been advised by the city attorneys office in the past that there is legal problems. in order to formally revoke, we have to conduct a hearing with you. it's a cumbersome project that we are proposing is an analog to that. it's accomplishes the same thing without an automatic revocation. >> okay. maybe it forces a hearing. if they don't get a hearing in the year 5 or whenever we decide that deadline is supposed to be.

okay. so to that i may have questions. i think on the stimulus side, that one is clear and it actually sets more define tive time frames. there is it opt out, your entitlement is revoked. at least this one is more clear, if you don't opt to this you are on the path to revocation. it's interesting to note theets these are all projects approved by us. they are not trying to sneak things underneath the radar. these are items that have been approved in the last 8 years. the recession has been deeper and longer. i think we would agree to that than your typical business cycle. i think it's a sound rational to do this. of

the 90 permits, do you know how many were applied for prefall 2007 and approved post that date? >> it's a great question. we have a lot of data and would be happy to crutch that for you and respond to that. >> it would be to get a scope of what those projects are. and this issue that commissioner that 8 or 10 years. i would be more comfortable if your project has an entitlement. most agree it was in fall late 2007 that you are eligible for this program. how many projects would you add if you had so years and how many projects would you add or subtract if you had an approved entitlement

as of whatever date you have is kind of the beginning of the recession. i think it's legitimate if you had an approved project where you are in that period to get financing. i think it's more tive if we only gave you 3 years before. you would think a lot of them would have extended before. so what's the rational for that and can we do away with that provision. you extended prior to the recession

because you couldn't get financing when the recession started. why shouldn't you be able to take advantage of it. >> thank you, your questions are very extensive and somewhat legal. the policy would provide clarity for the way you would like to us interpret your approval in the past. there is this conflict or ambiguity in previous boiler plate to approval. well they expire and don't expire until there is a hearing. you are going to guide us through and say for example projects that were approved in the last 8 years should be acted on administratively. that

typically doesn't exist. you have already visited the project and your approval motion itself is clear that it says such and such a date is the clear window in which a permit must have been issued. it's a bit technical. >> if we extended a permit in 2008 for two or three years it's not revoked. it's in this weird process? >> except with the case of projects that have been already extended, the weird process is much less weird. the motions are more clear and binding. do you want to articulate better? >> susan cleveland noels. i'm not sure exactly what the language of the policy is but you can't revoke, a permit cannot expire without a chance for notice and hearing. so

that's due to state case law. so to the extent i think would you always have to have a hearing before officially revoking a permit. regardless of whether it's been extended. >> it's this period where they don't know if they have a permit or not. if you went by the rules and extended for 3 more years or whatever that period, you are still in the same predicament that someone who got a permit and didn't do anything. i think that should be stricken. >> we'll investigate it and talk to the city attorneys office and report back to you with what we can do. >> commissioner border? >> yes. i think this is an issue to get around the 3 year

provision because we've seen a lot of cases. what we looked at in the hearing is the extension of the period. i don't know about the older projects because i think it's a little bit more complicated depending on the project and the number of times that people have come back for entitlement and extensions. we would review, we can pull things off the list to review their plans. i think if the issue is practically reviewing architecture alal drawings, having a process to look at those projects might be worthwhile to discuss architectural things if there

is a retail store or restaurant or project that conditions use with the land and not necessarily with the person that comes before us and that's what we got extensively particularly more often in restaurants and other uses that we even do in large projects entitlements. so i think there is a time and place for review but i think it's a practical thing we can't control. i do believe that having some receive review of the projects would make sense for that purpose. in terms of sequel, i think there is a misunderstanding that this legislation has nothing to do with sequel. this is about permits that are extended and it can you say not change to legislation. this legislation

speaks to projects and folds building permits. what's really interesting we have many times extensions, people will come to get entitlement extensions after they have expired. technically their 3 year period has already passed. i am confused because i have seen entitlements as short as one year and as long as 3 years. can you explain what those are? >> it's confusing. the commission practice only to the interpretation is the generic project to be assigned a 3 year performance period. but they are all handful of particular projects, office projects, projects