it's 2003 about 10 years ago and a couple years ago it's fine because the economy put it back. for 8 years is in the project. so for 10 years. so cover my project. now about two years already. so and not good. very bad. my son explains to me, if any questions, this is my son. he can answer any questions. >> my name is henry lamb. that was my father speaking at first. he's been a small business owner in san francisco, his conditional use was approved in october of 2003, unfortunately his extension was granted in 2006,

but like you say before due to the economic times at that time he was not able to secure financing and able to secure the project. he hopes you will be able to extend the permit to continue use for commercial project. >> thank you. additional public comments? if a few of you want to cue up lineup in order. >> good afternoon commissioner. i do want to pick in favor of the half of this proposal what goes to expiring permits to bring them up to date. that makes sense. i'm concerned about the if you are the performance period to make it a

strict 3 year period that in all cases would require coming back to this commission for an extension if this building permit is not obtained in 3 years. the proposal almost suggest that we are not going to have another recession. 3 years is a short time and if you need time to raise equity or raise debt or do building permit design work and three years can come and go fast. if we are in a down turn cycle that is not obtainable. so we are almost creating a new problem while solving the old problem. i think you should seriously consider making your standard condition 5 years instead of 3 years particularly for large projects so you don't

have that continual problems. they are also an asset for the city. the city has an obligation understate allow to continue to produce housing and continue to do economic development and it doesn't do it well to expire. the fact that you have to come back to the planning commission after 3 years and during that extension it would be at complete discretion to modify the project. it makes it more difficult particularly in a recessionary period. as you saw in the statistics over the last year, over 180 projects have of them have not been built yet. you are asking for continual problems.

>> thank you. >> good afternoon, tim cohen on behalf of the housing acting coalition. we are still trying master the details but want to say how much we appreciate the idea of this being brought forward both as stimulus and fairness. what mr. be theel referred to are a lot of projects that we endorsed and they were good projects and with that recession they were falling by the way side in numbers. we are not sure what city policy is advanced to say, well, you are at risk for losing what was before, you can't get it back. we think it makes a lot of sense both in terms of fairness, particularly san francisco known widely for it's unique process where titlement takes a longer

process. this is a step in the right direction. we appreciate the sentiment behind it. thank you. >> hi, this is tez wall born. i respectfully ask that you review this item on the adjustments need to be made. i would also comment that using the percentage figure like that is a pretty broadbrush. it's not the way i was taught to do analysis in school. but, it has been raised that there is an economic and real estate cycle. hey, you know what, it goes about every 8 years. this is not a stimulus for them. what

they want is funding and they want a valuable asset. so, project may have taken 3-6 years to be entitled. please defer this until we get the 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