president hillis: gsh gsh -- apply not only to the base projects but to the affordable projects, and i think that works in san francisco and other places. it doesn't necessarily work, so the state hasn't been able to pass that, but i think it's an unfortunate quirk in the state law that we're actually increasing density here and allowing for more units in the affordable housing percentage goes down. but it's just an area we don't have any control. i mean, we can stand here and shake our fist at that one, but there's not much that we can do. i think this is a good location

for housing. we should be building housing in the mission, we should be building housing in every corridor of the city. i'm glad we just approved housing in geary, and i think we should be building housing in a district, especially adjacent to b.a.r.t. i agree with the -- i think the design has gone in a positive direction in kind of minimizing the impact on mission street. unfortunately, that kind of pushes some of that mass to the back and may have an impact on the alleys and schools, but it's just a choice we face, whether we want that mass on the front or in the back. i think we had that proposal with the mass in the front or in the back last week. i think it's a tradeoff given

the fact that we've been advised we can't trim much of the mass off this project. so i'm supportive of housing here, and i think -- i think we're a bit -- our hands are a bit tied on some of the issues surrounding affordablity. commissioner richards? richar >> supervisor: it's been a long process. it's, at times, been contentious, but hopefully, it will be coming to an end here today. i'm incredibly sympathetic to everybody in the neighborhood, and i think to commissioner hillis' point, everybody makes sense. we have a housing crisis, and until somebody can tell me supply and demand doesn't work,

increasing supply or reducing demand should allow us to help work our way out of the bind that we have. one of the issues we have is reading the ucla study that we have to increase our housing supply by 25% in order for 10% decline in prices, in other words, san francisco has to have magically appear 76,000 units, when our target is 5,000 peryear. it looks like we're setup for failure. we have what we have before us. we have a project before us that could not use sf home. i believe it was allowed to use sud, like the prior project, but the developer has chosen not to. we have a state bonus density project that would come in at 12.5% -- 12.5 or 14.5, i'm a little bit -- 14.5, but with

the additional units it takes that down. we have a project where we have a school close by. we have a project over on pot remember owe close by, and they worked with the project to make sure that mitigation measures were in place. we have a mitigation plan here, and i don't know what the impact's going to be. i think the project sponsor with the department of health needs to consult to make sure that having little kids so close to a construction site mitigate -- there's mitigations that really are -- that are meaningful, i see here. the project for construction noise -- the project sponsor has aagreed to use piles where feasible and shielding. i don't know what that means? if you have a two-year-old around, does that mean they're going to be hurt in any way? construction noise, implement a set of noise atenuation

measures. just one other thing. i noted mr. smith's testimony about where we are in the city and the things that we need to do, as well as mr. tim colon. sorry. you've been gone a little while, and i forget you already. since 1990, we have 100,000 homes containing an additional 100,000 units, lo. [ inaudible ] i just want to -- i keep coming back to that. we have 65,000 units in the pipeline approved. that includes treasure island,

parkmerced, hunters point, and a host of other projects that are either getting built, sold, waiting for capital to flow, and we have 141,000 capacity of units on all the parcels we have that we could still build housing on. so again, the fact that, you know, we're constraining the ability to build housing is only half the story, and i have to come back and scratch my head and always say, well, where are we -- if we have 141,000 unit capacity, where are we constraining it? it i mean, seriously? why isn't it getting built is the question i want to ask. there's got to be a question somewhere. development impacts communities, absolutely. there's things to be said on both sides of that. i think there's economic and social impacts. we've seen that from u.c. berkeley. we also see on the flip side that if we don't build enough

housing that, on the demand side chasing a smaller supply are bid be up and we see evictions, and to commissioner hillis' point, we need to stablize communities on less evictions, rent control, etcetera. and for those who have a way with how the state density bonus law reads, i strongly suggest you contact congressman chiu and senator wiener or your other elects thoughts -- elected members in sacramento. >> supervisor: as other commissioners have said, i actually agree with all of the public comment that we've seen here today.

this is a challenging project, and i'll start with saying we often have these really broad conversations at the planning commission level, and we talk about a lot of things. we talk about the streets, we talk about affordablity, we talk about design, we talk about a broad range of things, and commissioner richards, he went into a lot of things in state law, and if you ought all those topics that we touch on in a pie chart, our actual authority is, like, that small supplies, and i think that's something that i want to start off by saying today, and we'll see where we end up on this project. we just had a project where there was sud, so we were able to argue for more percentage, but yet, we are constrained with this one. that's a box we've been put in, which is really unfortunate. in a world where state law wasn't what it was, and our constraints weren't where they

were, i would be sitting here saying send it back unless there's more, but it's challenging for us to be able to do that. i also -- people have mentioned -- commissioners have mentioned the state density bonus law which has some contradictory affordable requirements, but there's also an affordable housing act, that commissioner melgar didn't mention, we are in risk of a lawsuit if we disapprove projects where we haven't made very specific findings that pertain to codes that are written down, not ones that we've just made up up here, so i'll probably be asking and appropriating and, i think there's a couple other commissioner -- reprobing on what we can do there. i would like to push for more for this project, but i think i wanted to start it off by saying there's a lot that

constrains us that we don't always actively talk about, so people come and they say see, see you, and they think there's other things we can do with the project other than the up or down vote, and there's very little. it seems like this project, it's either this project, it's up, or it's down, and it's back to square one. so i will then follow this up with a couple other thoughts. i did see in talking to both people in the mayor's office of public housing and the comments in the letter that i had received that there had been an offer for the developer to sell this lot to the city for 100% affordable housing and then i hear from the mayor's office on housing that they did consider that, but the stated price by the developer was just too high for their fund, so that's another constraint that's on us. that's perfect, and that's what we would love to do, but if the

people that control those purse strings say it's too expensive, then it's challenging for us. and the only other thought that i would offer at this moment, and again, we'll see where we land, because i don't know that i'm happy with either one of our options for today is if this project does get approved today, this is one of those -- definitely one of those projects where getting to commissioner richards' questions is why are there tens of thousands of units in the pine line but haven't been built, there's a true opportunity that this project would be added to that pile. i do think that if we decide to go forward with this project today, we need to schedule the revocation hearing, and that date needs to be in 18 months. because there's the mayor's executive order which requires that look at entitlements within six months, and then all other agencies look at their

permits within 12 months after that, and i think that this project either needs to get built or go back to square one in terms of having to get entitlements and having to go through the full round, so that would be -- we have to all look at this ski facing our city attorney in a moment and see if that's something we can do as part of the conditions of this project. but that's something that i would totally advocate for if there is support for approving this project today. so that's my thoughts, and maybe we'll end up going back around. >> president hillis: any other commissioners? >> supervisor: okay. i'll ask the city attorney while we're sitting here, like, the ideal on the revocation hearing. >> commissioner kate stacey in the city attorney's office.

i am not sure what it provides for in the conditional use. i thought it was three years, but i'm not sure what the code provides. the commission could certainly schedule an informal hearing on this project in 18 months. i -- i think we need to check with staff what the current requirements are for when permits need to be pulled or when construction has to occur. >> supervisor: i think you can add a special condition to this project for that, but at minimum, even if the period can't be 18 months, it has to be three years, entitlements don't expire after that period of time. you have to have an action by the commission, and so i would say that we set that action up for the commission in three years if we go forward with this project to have their say. >> yeah, commissioners so typically, the conditional use permit is valid for three years, and within that time, the property owner has to vest

the conditional use, and the way they do that is by pulling a building permit of some sort, so that would basically allow them to build, so that typically involves, like, some kind of foundation permit or some kind of super -- you know, super structure permit that basically allows them the ability to grant. so i think in this case in the motion you have before you, issued a permit or site permit to basically construct, so that's the time frame typically for the conditional use. and i believe that we -- this is standard language in most of your motions, so it's not something actually in the code, but it is part of the motion, just to be clear. so -- and it's -- it's -- consider to be -- it's on page 27 of your packet. it's valid for three years from the effective date of the motion, which would be today or when jonas signs the motion, and then, the requirement is that the dbi would have to issue a building or site permit within that three years, so you could -- the point being it

doesn't automatically expire, but you could, at that point, have a revocation hearing. >> supervisor: so commissioner miller, do you mind if i ask one more? so there's a couple things. so terms of the condition on the revocation hearing, which is an issue that i've been throwing out for a while there, i do want to question whether or not it has to remain three years 'cause that's what's in the code. i think we can have other conditions within our conditions for a cu, and i see the city attorney shaking her head. the other thing is i think it is incumbent on this with this sort of project in terms of the discussion that we've been having to not just go for the permit being pulled, but to have some level of phase -- of the phase completion. i mean, they phase a project usually out after -- when you're getting your construction permits because there are a myriad of projects that pull a construction permit for -- for excavation or for

citing first, and then, they put a backhoe on the project and leave it there for two years. so that happens, and that doesn't necessarily mean that there's going to be a building on that site. so i'm just trying to use this project as a way to start having those discussions. and i'm telling you about other housing projects where i think there is the will and the way to build them, and i don't think we certainly need to put that pressure on, but fore the sake of the state density bonus, and there are some preservation that we have over the conflict that this project provides, which is allowable under state law and all of that and what we would like to see that we've seen before in other projects and with our local laws, i think we have the ability to also put some pressure from the other side. >> president hillis: i'm sorry. go ahead, kate. >> commissioners, kate stacey in the city attorney's office.

the provision does not set forth three years. it just says a reasonable period. certainly, the commission could put a different time frame on this, in in light of specific circumstances applicable to this project. >> if i could just add to that, typically, when these deadlines are met, just to be totally clear, those are typically tolled if there are appeal os lawsuits. that's how we've typically operated. >> supervisor: certainly. >> president hillis: certainly. commissioner melgar medic. >>commissioner melgar: >> i do think there's a correlation between the expectations of the neighborhoods and the expectations of the market value of this developer. i also think we -- it's a conditional use application.

i want to point out that the community, good faith negotiations that have happened with this development have not been comparable to what we just say with the lucky penny project, and i think that that's an issue of, you know, respect or lack of of the neighborhood. i think if this conditional use application and lot merger would cast a shadow in construction on the playground of the hamlin school, it would be a very different story, so i just want to be on the record as saying that. >> president hillis: commissioner. >>commissioner johnson: johnson thank you, and i agree with commissioner melgar. i just think there's -- i don't necessarily, at this point, see the -- i don't know that i'm supportive right now, but there's lots of other things we can do. so just also on this project, we talked about the potential impact on the sensitive receptors, aka, all the

toddlers in the school, and we actually had a similar project just a couple blocks from here on vanness, where there was a preschool, and there was a new building going up behind it where they had to demolish the old one, and it was touching the preschool, right here, and i just wonder, what were the precautions there, if there's anyone that can speak to that from staff, anyone remembers, was it anything above and beyond what is tiply reviewed in treviewed -- typically reviewed in the ceqa? >> i remember they installed solid atenuation, and they did something with the windows to further prevent dust from penetrating. you're talking about the one side south from here. >>commissioner johnson: i thi -- >>commissioner melgar: i think i read similar wording in this one, so i wanted to speak to

that. i don't know that they're proposing to do less in the construction methods in that project which was a very similar level of impact. and then, again, i'm not sure where i'm landing on this project, but i will also echo the other commissioners who said, again, when i talked about that pie chart, we talk about a lot of things, there's actually only a few things that we can do anything about. i'm hugely an advocate for more tenant protection, vacancy control, eviction protections, and i think that those things really need to go forward, and we need to be thinking seriously of legislation and along awhatever else happens at the state and local level next year. >> president hillis: commissioner richards. >>commissioner johns: so the difference between what happens at the california like oaks school as well as the one rite around the corner, i don't remember the name.

[ inaudible ] -- i don't remember the name of the school, i'm sorry, was that both of the schools came and see these are the mutt gass we'd like to see. we'll start with windows and light and dusts and all of that stuff, and i'd ask mr. forbercher, i mean, i get the concerns, absolutely. i mean, have small children 20 feet away from, you know, a building being constructed. what are the things that beyond the peir, the mitigation measures in the planned eir that you would think would be appropriate for the children at this school? >> besides not having the building there? >>commissioner johns: i don't think that's going to be a possibility. >> so one of the things that we have to take into consideration as i mentioned earlier, the campus is split by osage alley, and osage alley is used as an

evacuation route for both of those schools in the event that the front entrances would not be able to be used as a point of egress. all right, what would that be in terms of the impact in families -- so osage alley is a directional one way. what would be the impact of families being able to access the alley to bring their young children to the school, so those are our issues just on the construction phase behind that. the second piece behind it is i did not receive a shadow study. i don't want my kids to be in the dark, so i don't know how you would overcome a building casting a shadow. our program is over 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. so in the summertime, i don't know how you can get away from the noise buffer in a

construction zone. i can't imagine construction would take a 2.5 hour break so our kids could speak. the impact the building would have once the project is constructed has yet to be seen because i don't know what the construction process would be like that would affect our students. after that, if i'm hearing a three year -- i'm not all up to -- i know letters, because i teach kids letters, but i don't know what those letters mean together, so part of the challenge behind that is this construction progress could be happening longer than some of my kids have even been alive. do i want my kids going to school in a construction zone their entire life? that's an impact that i won't know until i see what happens to them later on, and with the gentrification in the neighborhood, what would happen to the families that don't have access to the laundromat that's going to be torn down and replaced. so there's a lot of -- and i

would love to -- nobody's ever come to me and actually said, what are your thoughts. that would have been nice to have, but i think that we have some real concerns. >> supervisor: so let me ask you this. >> yes. >> supervisor: pie in the sky, how many children go to school there. >> so we have 95 children that attend. 96 preschoolers. 44 of our students are in t-k, but then, we serve 44 students from san francisco all communities in our on-site speech and language center, which has a certified speech pathologist that provides services to children with speech delays. that space, that room that provides that speech delay support is immediately adjacent to where this construction zone's going to be happening. how are children could have individualized education plan, which are under the federal

ida, going to receive speech services amidst drills and jackhammers, and how are the speech pathologists going to assess progress with all the noise. >> supervisor: so pie in the sky, with the skrisk unified school district and the resources in the neighborhood, str a possibility of relocating the programs for -- excuse me. excuse me, folks, you're out of order at this time. >> supervisor: while the construction is happening. >> so the short answer to that question is no. our state -- we're state licensed, and if we have a vacant space for schools, we can have a vacant space for these housings, so is there a vacant place for us to do that, that would be a very terrible idea, but at the same time,

there is some space in the mission that's available for a licensed preschool space. thank you. >> supervisor: commissioner moore? >>commissioner moore: i just want to remind all of the construction immediately north of this space did not have any protection from the construction site, there were no provisions for having to protect any open space, and in this particular case, it's preschool, which strongly relies on the open space, so i just want to remind ours that that does not apply. i have another question, a question for staff. i think a great deal of effort to construct has gone into modifying the building envelope, and i see that as a very positive move. the question i have, and it's a very theoretical one. what happened after the developer -- if the developer,

after this tortuous process, decides he doesn't want to did develop the building on his own and decides not to go forthwith the project. what -- what guarantees would we have that those modifications would, indeed, stay with an approved project today? >> it would be up to the project planner, in this case, which is myself, and if i'm still here when it comes through, to review the building permit plans and confirm that they do, indeed, match what was approved by the planning commission, and staff takes great care to ensure that that is done on every project, not, you know, just the large ones. >>commissioner moore: unfortunately, that is not the net result that having sat here for a number of years chl. i've seen a number of projects,

for lack of a better word, being dumbed down, that was presented to be something, but ultimately built with significantly modified quality. >> so commissioner, when these projects are brought back forward to staff, we do undertake minor discretion for when there are slight shifts from what the commission approves, particularly when we have good documentation that records how the commission reacted on a particular element or aspects of design. i think particularly for this one, knowing that the massing has been, you know, quite contentious in terms of its development and in terms of where we are today, that could be something that the commission calls out specifically as -- as something that would, you know, render it coming back to you in the future. >>commissioner moore: okay. thank you. >> supervisor: i guess, question for mr. tillman,

please. so you heard the concern with the school or preschool here next door. you get the permits in conjunction with the billion. what would you do with the school to make sure you mitigate the impacts. >> well, first of all, i've had many discussions with jay messina who's the former principal at the school. the reason we agreed to have no parking was because of the traffic concerns on osage, and it was -- by right, this property could have had -- this project could have had.5 parking spaces for each unit, and we gave up all parking primarily because we were not allowed to keep our existing curb cut on mission street, and so the only way we could do exit and entrance to the parking was on osage, and she

came to me and said, our parents use that for pick up, our kids walk back and forth. we really, really don't want any parking there, anymore traffic on osage, and i -- i understood that, and we fixed it. >> supervisor: okay. >> she also was concerned about the impact on mission street, and we have a 40-feet loading zone on mission street in front of the property. you understand we're eliminating a curb cut on mission. >> supervisor: right. >> so with regard to the construction, when we did our environmental review, i am very concerned about children, so i specifically gave my -- my own environmental consultant instructions to bend over backwards to make sure that it was safe. i said exactly the same thing to the -- the -- our environmental planner, and

anything that we can do to make things easier on the school, we will do. so it -- if there's one thing that i'm concerned about, it's the health of kids. >> supervisor: okay. great. and one last question -- excuse us, please. [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: sir, i really prefer not to call the sheriff's office into the chambers. call the sheriff, please, jonas. [ inaudible ]

>> president hillis: if you insist on continually disrupting these proceedings, you will be escorted out of these chambers. commissioners, we left off on item 19 for case number 2014.1364 cua, and before i forget again, this item was heard previously, and commissioner johnson, you were absent, so if you could identify that you have reviewed the materials to proceed jansen jansen i have. >> president hillis: and i think we had mr. tillman on when we took a pause, so mr. tillman, if you can come back

up. >> so there were e gregress is with osage alley, and because of the disruption, i forgot what you had said. >> i met with jay messina and other people with the school district, including the heard architect for the project, and jay had been particularly concerned with traffic impacts on osage, and i had tried to keep our curb cut on mission so we could have parking because many other people in the neighborhood had expressed concern about having enough parking, but i was told that it was impossible to keep a curb cut on mission, and the only way i could put in parking was to go in through osage, so i was faced with a choice of inconveniencing the school because they use osage for pick up and drop off, and for the

kids to go back and forth across the alley to the different campuses, or getting rid of parking, and i chose to get rid of parking. primarily because of the schools issues. >>vice president richards: are you aware of the pei and how they would -- >> yes, i am. i'm aware. i have read them. i haven't gone through construction of a building before, but what i did was i instructed my environmental planning consultant and also, i said to the environmental planner that i wanted to be particularly careful with making sure that we did the construction in a way that would minimize the impact on the school, and they -- if you

read these environmental plans, they -- they literally go hundreds of pages. so i am presuming, since i told both my own person and the planner that that was what i wanted, that that was what they did. >>vice president richards: okay. there was an issue with access egress for the children for osage alley. comment on that -- during construction. >> yes, and so it is possible to do the construction without putting construction -- doing the construction on osage itself, accessing the site through osage. so, for example, people all the time -- a lot of construction's done where there's no alley in back, and yet, the construction's done, so we don't have to access the site through osage to get the construction done. >>vice president richards: okay. one last question, shadow impacts. if you or any members -- >> there was -- the planning

department informed us that there are no shadow impacts. they studied it, and they told us there wasn't. there weren't any, and as i am reminded, the -- the sunsets in the south in the mission, just like every where else, so i don't think mission is subject to any special sun movement. >> okay. mr. sucre, can you comment? >> correct. the pei study has stated that the sun does not set directly on the school. i can't speak to what the environmental planner analyzed since we haven't looked at it in detail but that's what the community plan exemption says that that's in your packet. >>vice president richards: any comment from the planner? >> by the way, julie moore was

the planner, and she's the most senior person in the department. >>vice president richards: thank you, mr. tillman, very much. commissioner fong? >>commissioner fong: this is a -- this is a rock and a hard place, and it's fraus traiting to actually lotraiting -- frustrating to actually look at the project. i feel that all the projects that have come and changed that neighborhood drastically. roberto and i have known each other for a very long time, and i know exactly what he's talking about, but this program with the state density bonus project is different than other projects that we've been talking about, and i feel compelled, to some degree, unless we're willing to face legal action as a city, to vote yes on this. and the situation we have before us with seven commissioners, which is, to me, a question -- six

commissioners, with one missing, is maybe a question itself that something of this magnitude, this particular project, we should have potentially a full commission. and i believe, and correct me if i am wrong, if we end up at a tie vote, the project fails or the motion fails through the tie vote? >> supervisor: that's correct. because procedurally, commissioners because there is six of you, there is the instance that you could fall in a tie vote, three for and three against. if there is no continuation of the vote to allow the seventh commissioner to chime in the project is failed. you need to affirmatively approve and authorize the project, so a 3-3 vote would be a disapproval.

>> supervisor: someone would have to make a motion to continue. >>commissioner fong: okay. so l let me try this -- let me make a couple other comments, and i use the comment rock and a hard place. 10% of affordable housing sucks. it's lame, right where we are, and it's upsetting me to think that we're working so hard in this particular district that's had so much growth and it's got -- i don't know, disproportionate or not by the rest of the city, but obviously, you just drive down, and it's changed, and i get that. and i wish we could do better, but i don't think with this particular parcel -- i don't necessarily blame the property owner. you've got to do what you've got to do, and if you over generous to do something else, that's great, but the cards are sort of dealt to you in this particular instance. the neighbors may try to point

the fingers at you, but i don't necessarily do that. i'm just going to try to make a motion to approve and see where we are. i'm going to appropriates -- and please help me staff, for all of the maximum amendments for mitigation for construction with the school next door, working hand in hand with the school district as well as the principal to make sure that air pollution, disruption, all things that could and possibly be dangerous to kids are considered and taken care of. i believe commissioner johnson maybe has another item or two to try to add to the weight and conditions of this approval. >>commissioner johnson: i can say we can go down the list. i think there were a number of changes that people wanted to see, but i'm only supporting this project if the revocation hearing is scheduled in 18 months, which just to explain entitlements do go away after a period of time, but the commission has to take an affirmative action to actually revoke a permission, and that has actually never happened.

and this is a case where i would want to see that happen, and we can talk to the city attorney about how phase approvals work. i don't want it to just be an excavation project and they put a backhoe on it and that's it. i would want there to be -- the hearing is scheduled, unless there is a serious movement towards phase completion for the project. >>commissioner johnson: >> supervisor: do i hear a second? >>commissioner fong: well, i make a motion. are you adding that second? >>commissioner johnson: yes. >> supervisor: shall i call the question? commissioner moore. >>commissioner moore: i'd like to make a general comment for the record. i believe the state density bonus law has flaws with it, and if you apply it equitably

across the state of california which is experiencing growth, we're never going to get where we're trying to go, so i want to leave that sitting in the room here because there is something which needs to be considered at a deeper level regarding the particular provisions of that bond. >>commissioner fong: exactly. >>vice president richards: commissioner sucre. >> the first thing would be that department staff would work with the department sponsor to craft a construction mitigation program in consultation with the school to address concerns about noise, air quality, and health and safety, dust, and access, so that one seems clear, all right, in terms of its intent. the second one, i think we need, in terms of scheduling the revocation hearing, i think we need to be clear about what

the milestones are for that in terms of the project. so typically, a sponsor would be required to file for a conditional use -- all right. they obtain their conditional use authorization, they go through their appeal period. they would then file their site permit, and then, subsequent to the site permit, they file a series of architectural addenda that would authorize them to build things like the foundation, the mechanical, etcetera, etcetera. so i think for us to move forward in a revocation hearing, we need to be clear with what the met rikz are that would trigger the revocation for lack of construction. does that make sense? >>commissioner johnson: no, it makes sense. my understanding is there are phase approvals of projects, so there were phase drawings that add in as you say, where the water pipes are and where is

everything, and then, there's a series of permits that have to come from other departments both to allow for the actual construction and to approve those architectural drawing that have more detail in them. my understanding is those are generally split into phasing, so it depends on whether -- it's the size of the project or not. >> it's actually not phasing, it's -- there's a site permit which is typically first, and then there are what are called addendum, and then, there's the electrical or the mechanical or that sort of thing. it wouldn't be built in sort of phases, per se, it's just how the permits are issued. >>commissioner johnson: so i guess my question is, the -- there's a series of addendum, and they require permits that come from other departments. and i'm just maybe -- this is my question, either for the attorney or you guys, what is the next phase after that, because there are projects

where all or most of that process happens but then, you look, and it's still just an empty lot with, like, a shovel in the ground to count as, like, they're doing the excavation, and so what i want to try to get to is -- what i would want to see is substantial progress in construction. you may not have a finished building in 18 months, but you certainly would have piles drive and, like, something happening. more than just a piece of equipment on the ground, right? >> so to provide an example. the mission sadly has an example directly across from the mission theater project where there's the structure of the building, just sort of sitting there that was approved for a gym back in 2002. but the sponsor in that case has just been consistently allowed by dbi to just renew their permit while they work toward the addenda, so one

thing the project could do is discuss completion of the work relative to the approvals. that would be a little hard to guesstimate, but if you gave us enough direction in terms of the metrics of where you want to see progress, that might be something to add into this. >> loper? >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. just to put some context on how long it's taking site permits or building permits to get to a construction phase, 18 months is very tight. bob tillman has actually already filed his site permit, which you should probably take as an indication that he is doing as much as he can to start the construction process if he gets through the approval process, but 18 months is a very, very tight turnaround. i know it doesn't sound like a tight turnaround, but it is. and a lot of it is actually

outside the hands of the project sponsor. the city planning department's colleagues at the building department are completely overwhelmed just the way city planning is, so sometimes building permits will sit and languish at various stations waiting for somebody to come and pick it out, and it can take a long time, just based on workload for something to finally get issued. all that being said, there is a condition of approval that talks about valid, and it talks about a building or site permit being issued within three years. i think that if that condition is just changed to 18 months, with the idea that in 18 months, we'd be able to come back here and talk about how much progress we've made and hopefully be able to talk about getting ready or maybe we've already started grading or maybe even going down into -- going down into a basement level, that that would be something that we could do.

but i'd hate to be in a position where you set a hard deadline that -- for reasons that have nothing to do with the sponsor cannot be meet, but i think if you'd like to talk about what may be acceptable. >>vice president richards: just as an aside, i look for to dbi's response. commissioner moore? >>commissioner moore: architect bob, would you mind coming to the microphone. schematic design goes into -- >>vice president richards: i'll apologize. one thing is because of the changes we've made in the very recent future, we've got a little bit of work to do to get the site permits revised, right? and then just to -- so the way it works is when we -- when we do pull a site permit which is,

unfortunately, taking a long time is -- as you probably all know, that doesn't give us the right to put a shovel in the ground, right? we've then got to go through the addendum process, and it's hard to say today, exactly -- you know, i think you're allowed to up to seven addenda, and depending on how you organize it, we might do it in less addenda, and typically, the first one would be shoring and underpinning and excavation, so it's actually hard to say when we could start digging in the ground. >>commissioner moore: actually, why don't you go through the schematic in the ground, you haven't done any working drawings on this project, i assume, to put this into the reality of what's happening at dbi and the rest of the city, there's not a single construction company coming forward to bid on that job because there are more than 5,000 units that are looking for seismic retrofits and they

have to have it done by 2019. it's impossible to find anybody bidding on anything. >> okay. i didn't understand your question exactly at first. so again, we have not -- we have some schematic design to complete because we've revised the design. once we do that, we go into design development, go into the systems, start to engineer the project. we really haven't in any way engineered the project yet, although we go on basic engineers principles at this point, so we need to bring in the engineers consultants, then we go into the construction documents which are the same as building permit documents, which we would really detail the buildings, and as commissioner moore is stating, we can't really get a real bid or negotiated contract until we have the construction documents almost done. i think the intent would be to

move this thing along quickly, but some of those -- as the architect sitting here listening -- and i understand the desire to avoid a situation where the site sits there unbuilt, there just are some realities of how long it takes, and it's -- you know, as mark loper says, if there's some way to -- you know, to come back and report on progress, that seems like a reasonable way to do this. commissioner moore, does that answer -- >>commissioner moore: you answered my question, thank you. >> commissioners, if i may be of some assistance here. kate stacey from the city attorney's office. if you look at conditions 1, 2, and 3 of the conditional use permit, they all have to do with timing of pulling permits and undertaking construction, so condition number 1 is really the validity question. it currently says three years. if the commission shortened that, that's the condition that should be amended.

condition number 2 is -- about these kinds of timing issues, so if the commission were going to shorten this -- the validity of the cu, it should be shortened in number 1, and then, number 2 should reflect that same shorter time period, but you will be having a hearing at which the project sponsor could come back and talk to you about progress and problems. and then, condition 3 is really about this diligent pursuit project that i think is the second part of what commissioner johnson has asked for so the condition currently states that construction must commence during the time required by the department of building inspection and be

continued diligently to completion. failure to do so shall be grounds for the commission to can be revoking approval. i don't know off the top of my head what that dbi time period is, but you have conditions already that allow the commission to monitor this. it's really just a question of changing those time frames in conditions 1 and 2, and then, to monitor, also, the ongoing diligence of construction activities in condition number 3. >>vice president richards: commissioner johnson? >>commissioner johnson: thank you. so you saw those there, and it was intentional. my -- the idea of the revocation hearing. i didn't make that up out of nowhere. so i think definitely, i would -- it is -- i understand that we are in a labor crunch in the construction industry at this point in time, and so that

is challenging. but we also, in terms of being able to make progress and getting permits, we do have a mayor's executive directive, which is asking all agencies, including dbi, to reramp their processes and staffing to be able to process things faster, so the days of things just languishing until, you know, the four horsemen come down, they really should be done, and particularly in the next year to two years when this executi executive directive due and people are filing plans, so to speak, and doing what they need to do to get those timelines in order. i do think that because this is a challenging project, and there are ways that our discussion is really being constricted in terms of lots of areas of the project that we have discussed, there are areas where it's not constricted. like, if -- this is the project that we are going to approve, it needs to happen or not

happen. in terms of item 2, the one thing i would say is it is a little bit wishy washy because it basically says if the project sponsor doesn't apply for the renewal beyond the three years, then there's a hearing, and what i'm saying is strengthen that to have a hearing and deny the permit -- deny the entitlement if there's not progress on the project, which is a different thing. because the dbi could say, xy, and z, and the four horsemen come down, and i'm just saying progress needs to be made. maybe 18 months is too short, but three years is too long. we can consider 24 months, but not just whether or not there's -- a -- an applicati