we had a hearing several weeks ago on this item and you have given us comments from the public and we have revised the statements based on those comments today and i wanted to briefly go over those revisions with you and ask you for your support on this statement. as you recall when we came to you before we talked about using the word charter to describe this package and we removed the title. we are calling this the mission value statement of the department and there was a statement in the values that you had asked us to remove about being delivered in our process. you had been uncomfortable with that statement and now it's removed and a third, being linguistically and culturally sensitive, we've added a value statement on that and there are a number of actual statements and we have revised that

mission statement to summarize the responsibilities of the department as broadly as we can. i will say this is intent that can be a guide for the department and the best way i know of describing it is it reminds us of why we do and what and what we do it for. it not meant to replace code, policy or a legislative item. it's meant to be a very short value and mission statement for the department. so it does have 3 components, mission statement, vision and value statements. and we have revising the mission statement to incorporate your comments and comments by the public. i would like to read that. the san francisco planning department under the direction of the planning commission shapes the future by generating

an extra ordinary vision, improving our surroundings through environmental analysis and preserving and enforcing planning code. if i may, there have been comments from the public about making sure we incorporated affordable housing concerns and that statement about encouraging the broad range and the preservation was incorporated hence the phrase preserving our unique heritage. the one thing you asked us to do is that we understood and you understood how this is to be used and the tactics if you will. the second page of the memo it outlines those tactics. it will be used in general by management and staff to ensure

our decisions are in alignment with the department's mission. it will be used in the department's performance measures where we report quarterly on certain performance measures for how we operate and will be used for staff performance and by me to in general remind staff of the awareness of what we do and why we do it and who we do it for. for that, i would like to ask for your support and happy to answer any questions. >> any public comments on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. >> i like it. i think it deals with various things we brought up with our comments and brought up to address all of those and i think it's a good statement and i would be in

favor of it. >> commissioner wu. >> if i can ask you to speak to the idea of how this document or mission vision statement is used, what role does it play versus the planning priorities that are in the code and what the difference or similarities might be? >> this is for internal for staff for kind of guiding how we do our work. it's not meant to replace policies or general plan. there have been discussions and correspondence about how we should deal with the planning code. there is many codes and legislation we could include. the plan itself is an over arching. one could argue the general plan is higher document than the prior

policies. given the challenges of the incorporating all by reference, the intent is to have an internal document to how we do our job, not what we do, but how we do it. that was the intent of how this was drafted >> commissioner moore? >> i think i would like to direct to himself. he's running this ship and this is the way you would like to run principles which you are to -- i would like to comment. for example instead of saying we tweet, or facilitate, i would say we strive to. by saying in absolute, you would say that you are striving to it. there is that moment of judgment by

which you ultimately will determine what something does rather than saying they do that is a subtlety for your group to do what needs to be done and what tone. the other thing i would like to see in reference to some of the broader issues with relation to the planning codes and plans which are new ones which have taken so much from the department that i would like to see them reference cht because if a new person comes in and see's the planning code and they will not see your daily work. by reference it will be a larger library of must think about documents. otherwise i would fully support of how you need to do this. >> thank you. commissioner?

>> i agree. i think the changes you made were great. it's good to take kind of a giant step back and look at why we are here. i would support it and move to prove. >> second. >> commissioner? >> i would agree with the approval. i think there is a reference in the mission statement. it talks about the neighborhood plans and they are referenced in there already and that's fine without going into details which gets to detailed. i like his statement as it's written. >> on that mission, commissioners to endorse the department's mission and value statements, commissioner aye, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. and places you under item 8 on timing of

project implementation. >> good afternoon, dan with the department staff. this item commissioners is on your agenda today for discussion only for informational item. we are not suggesting that you take action, we are recommending that on april 4th at the public hearing you can consider taking action at that time. and if we can have the screen for a second, mr. secretary. this is the technical title for this item. it's what we, and staff have as an appropriate -- here is a more useful product. handout you quickly must someone get a permit. this is

what we are talking about today. we are not suggesting that you make any global changes to your timing. in january we did transmit some material to you that would have been broader reaching but today it's a much more targeted, much more limited approach. what we are talking about specifically are two draft policies that are included in your packet. the first is a clarifying update to understanding and approving language that affirms practice for all parties and one time stimulus program designed to really target recession impacted projects in particular. before getting into the details, just a little bit of background. as you know your authorization of project is at a very high level and following

your approval, documents are drafted up and building permit is issued and that allows a shovel to be put into the ground. when you grand your authorization, it contains performance conditions, performance time frames that requires that a permit be issued. the thinking behind that is we do want a project to be relatively promptly. we do want to prevent land banking and the city moves forward. performance conditions generally come into flavors. the first is for those projects that are subject to code mandated or commission mandated time frames. examples of these include large office projects or reconhill project and also include projects where their specific proposal or scope or

uniqueness feel that a time is more appropriate, a project wheb i believe you approved in september. now, the second type of performance conditions generally on the lower half of your screen. this is essentially everything else. projects where the code does not prescribe a particular timeframe and where you commissioners don't call out theic particular needs or wants and the project be implemented in a reasonable timeframe n 1983, 3 years was a reasonable timeframe. that's what we use today. the next question is how come we implement these performance and conditions that you impose on conditions of approval. if

we are dealing with the categories subject to code requirements and specific time frames. we do follow the instructions in the approval document, generally very straight forwards, nothing out of the ordinary. the second category of performance conditions similarly while they are governed by the approval document, the board of that language that under pins that document while it remains perfect. specifically there is a bit of internal contradiction of these approvals. on the one hand they indicate that an authorization becomes invalid merely through the passage of time. on the other hand, this language also suggest that an authorize remains valid until you revoke it at a public hearing. so commissioners what eve done in these cases

historically is to adopt a very conservative stance and following it's performing time period to extend the original authorizations. this brings us to the first of two policies. we suggesting that you adopt a resolution on april 4 that will deal with both future projects to get rid of this conflict, this ambiguity. if a former time period has run that you establish a permit to be brought back to you for permission. there was a clerical error on your draft policy. we are going to remedy that to make what i say perfectly clear and reflective in that resolution. very importantly what i just mentioned is not a change to policy, it's not a change to

our practice, it's merely rearticulating what we are doing now so there is more certainty and clairity of process. also this does not limit your discretion. as today should you review a project that you feel -- you can impose a specific timeframe. so, to be clear, the policy would apply on the in the absence of the specific direction from you. now, before we discuss the second policy, it's helpful to look at some framing statistics. before i put this on the screen i want to stress that these are as accurately as we can make them but very generalized. in the last 8 years you approved about 190 physical developments that are not mandated for conditions of

approval. why did we choose 8 years? because it was earlier than 2005 which were the first of the 3 year performance period was touched by the recession. we are targeting recession impacted projects only. out of these projects, 85 are now under construction or complete. an additional 15 have permits to begin construction. lastly we are looking at 90 projects that do not have permits. so out of 190 projects approved over the last 8 years do not have permits and cannot begin construction. let's break it down more. of these 90, 50 which include about 2600 dwelling units and 15 significant commercial projects these have already succeeded

their performance time frames. these will be returned to you for approval before their built. you can see these time frames, they will do so this year unless the permit is pulled in a couple months. these include 300 dwelling units and 5 non-residential significant projects. if we are looking at 50 or 60 projects what has the commission done historically with respect to request for extensions. we have seen very few over the last 5 years. again, we've had 35 request and we've had 34 approvals. only one has been disapproved. it's worth note

ing that disapproval was for senior citizens prior for the consideration. in that case the developer had not secured the subsidies and did not have a development partner and had not maintains the property in clean condition. so these numbers tell us two important things: the first is that despite already having been publically vetd and approved by staff and approved by you, more than a quarter of these recession impacted projects will need another hearing and that hearing has at 97 percent outcomes. based on the number and context, we question the utility of that hearing. here is what we are recommending that you consider as your second policy. we are proposing a one time limit economic

stimulus policy. this would responsibility to the impact to the recession, it would respond to the amount and quality development publically reviewed in the process. in general the policy would allow building and permit issuance after the timeframe has lapsed. it's important to note that this is not open-ended. we are proposing the department send out a 60 day mail notice to land owners of this project and allow enrollment to the program only if responders apply to us within that 60 days. and oncen rolled, they will have an 18 month timeframe to obtain the required permits. the policy would not apply to projects

with commission mandated or code mandated time frames. finally the policy wouldn't close the door for projects that choose not to opt in. they would further request a hearing of you today. we do need to talk about what is the law of the day. this is something that would be articulated in the stimulus possess in the clarification policy that we talked b the principles of the law of the day that a building application must conform to the law of the time of the approval. this is applying regardless of any provisions or what proifthsz provision were or were not in effect. what this means to take

for example a project that hypotheticallily received your conditional use for the plan process but that didn't secure a building permit until after the plan's effective date, that building permit will be nonetheless be subject to all current provisions of that plan which can be parking control, use control. it does reflect long stand is advice from the city attorneys office and will apply going forward regardless of either of these two policies. here is our last slide commissioners and before you continue your discussion today we want to remind you on the mechanics of the policies of a single majority of commissioners is required in order to adopt the policies.

policies can be modified or revoked at any time and perhaps the most importantly, this is the only stop, this does not require approval by the board of supervisors or any other entity. last thing, to reiterate this is only for discussion. we are not proposing any action. this will be back on your calendar on the 4th of april. happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you. two speaker cards up for comment. excuse me, eric brooks and bernie choeden. >> good afternoon, commissioners, eric brooks representing the organization in our city. first, i would strongly urge you to postpone consideration of this item

passed april 4th specifically for the reason this legislation also addresses hills and if there is an appeal over a project that the zoning administrator and these new rules can allow for the window of time that appeal delays the project under be added as another extension. now, whether that may or may not be reasonable, it could be reasonable, the point is that we are about to have a major consideration of changes in our ordinance around sequel procedures in san francisco, both the wiener version and now the kim version of these changes and i don't think that the planning should be arbitrarily setting policies typically where they r elt to

sequel and probably make some profound changes to the sequel and i would urge you wait until those two pieces of legislation is decided and then take up this item. to this item itself, i just want to say that especially to the second resolution, just quite frankly no way. we don't want six year instead of 3 years. we don't want the zoning administrator with all due respect to the zoning administrator, who i'm sure does a great job, we don't want the zoning administrator to extend deadlines add nauseam. we are talking about 50 projects that could use this rule making to sneak under the radar. this is the kind of

thing that makes us so concerned about item 12 on the agenda and adding more ways for the developers to sneak under the radar is not in the best interest of the city of san francisco. please hold your consideration of voting under this item until the big thing, the decision of the sequel legislation is decided an then take this up. one technical note that the kim version, it's the same thing but a different version than the wiener version. the wiener version was not crafted -- they refreshingly took extensive comments. these are two sides of the same and should be considered in relation to each other. thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you for the opportunity to which i i feel is beginning and many circumstances a very good initial attempt to improve the review of future development. to which i would like to make some suggestions for staff consideration. first the legislature, state legislature stimulus proposals extend does not functionally apply to san francisco or to new york city as being largely in terms of the development in the effects of a recession. we in terms of development enjoyment have not been susceptible. therefore we do not need a so-called stimulus especially considering cities whose rents went up 20 percent last year and we are

told condominiums developed. what i suggest is that the staff review the sequel process in terms of criteria which is an on going process in terms of the evaluation implied and the cumulative impact so that in effect time is not a criteria, it's arbitrary. what is important is what happens in space of time in terms of impact that is demanded by sequel law. it's not the impact on a parcel. it's all parcels that are impacted in terms of cost of housing. this is within the scope, should be within the scope of a professional

planning staff. therefore it has to be measured and kept up and i suggest that the staff look at it and i would be happy to lend my experience, director, to help out the systematic program to be devised. i do not think we should bypass arbitrary time designed by the planning commission because it's presumed to have worked. it hasn't worked. >> c'mon up. george lamb. howard fong. we also agree that this item should be reviewed carefully and deferred in until after the proposed sequel

legislation is thoroughly received. all stake holders should have a chance to look at the wiener and kim legislation. many people have not seen the legislation yet which has been crafted with much more neighborhood stakeholder. the delay of project is somewhat risky as you all know projects in general are delayed or deferred irrespective if one is in any economic down turn. i think the important criteria to evaluate is the percentage of projects that normally, even without economic down turns are delayed or deferred. financing is not only dependent on

economic conditions. the plans should be fairly consider of not only be broad. political action takes part in hour projects are approved. the average project probably not given the same consideration as powerfully backed projects, politically backed projects with great deal of funding. we need to have a very level playing field with the same considerations and fairness. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. lamb? >> my name is mr. lamb and this is the prt