transit hub. these are the types of projects and homes that a city is supposed to be prioritizing. while 100%, i understand where speakers here are coming from and i firmly understand and believe that the fears are very real, because it's been lived, we haven't built housing in the last 30 years and that got us into this mess. we have not provided enough homes for people to live and so what's happening, as our very healthy economy continues to grow, it puts pressure on current residents who are already living here. if we don't provide alternative places for people to live, then the housing stock that we currently have will get gobbablegobgobbledup by riches .

when we can provide a high number of subsidized hopes and put it next to a station, we thin that's think that's a win-. thank you. put. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here with bodere. at a hearing in this room several months ago, i heard one of the commissioners say the district has a target on its back. pot our community is feeling pressure of unaccount be development for some time and we're here before you today because we have solutions and we need your support. they had a neighborhood strategy and one of the clear recommendations that emerged from that strategy process was to create a housing plan for the neighborhood. one that would consider the incomes of local residents that

would account for displacement that is occurring in our neighborhood. two years later, the housing plan has not happened and so we are stuck responding to market rate after market rate development at the same time that affordable housing projects we've advocated for have met delay after delay. the proposal of 65 ocean is a visible example of this, the largest ever development proposed in the development and it promises to make the same failed momodel several blocks a. you have to earn three times the household income in this neighborhood in order to afford to move in. more than a year after opening its doors, it still has more than 5,000 square feet of empty

ground floor space and more than five empty apartment units while homeless people live on the sidewalk outside. so what we know is that market demand for high incomes is met just fine but for people doing daycare, teaching in our schools, working at nonprofits, cooking in our kitchens, these market rate projects are only making the problem worse. it is not enough for the 65 ocean project for a procedural bay ventures to debt the support oget support of alocal homeowne. it crit a critical to address tl businesses, youth, neighborhood families share so we say no to luxury housing at this site and asking you to ensure the community voices heard and asking that a project be held in the neighborhood, not at city hall at times to be accessible to youth to ensure that the

community whose have most at stake are at the table involve d in making decisions. we look forward to your response. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is harry bette better bi would like to speak about two items. i recently received the subsequent draft eir for the balboa reservoir project. they're still collecting comment. the only thing i want to point out to you is i believe it's 500-page document with about 1,000 pages in the appendix in the back, in a disc. the most striking part is the cover.

the cover shows a lot which is 800 to 1,000 parking space and virtually empty with six cars. i just came from there today and city college is this session and it was almost impossible to get a space and that's the spill-over parking lot. the er no longer dealing with parking issues but it's very strange you're having this distorted picture when the reality is quite different. so consider that in the future. i would also like to speak in support of some of the speakers. i went to observe the demonstration recently from the 65 ocean and they met at the chesial properties where the two-determine units are going for 4500 a month and the one-bedroom units for $3500 a month. and the people who are speaking to you are rightly concerned

because that was an example of something that has already been approved. the site they're talking about 65 ocean, has already gone through the sequa hearing and so it's virtually approved and you are not hearing their voices. you're not hearing their need more affordable rather than luxury. the chesial project on mission street was almost entirely luxury, as well. and you know, it's a systemic problem, not just the problem of this, but they're faced with one problem at a time and being thrown out of where they live, where they grew up and i'm not sure what you can do, but you have to hear their voices. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is marlin dran and i'm a community organizer. i'm here today to support the

excelsior community in asking for a planning commission hearing in the neighborhood. we know that having these in the neighborhood brings out community members as you have seen. you get to hear the heart and soul of communities where they feel safe in the environment they're in versus city hall, where you hear and city the lives of the people who want to tell you that they 'do want luxury apartments in their neighborhood. they really need affordable housing. reach people won'.we say no to s of 16 says this planning commission hearing should be in the neighborhood because saw the success and heard the stories and changed your minds. this should be another example. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i work work as a community orgar in excelsior. i would like to appreciate the

eye contact i've seen throughout the comment from all of you. unlike other governmental people, you're making eye contact and listening to the community and so i encourage you to come down to the excelsior and have a town hall with everybody here to speak to you and passionately about defending their community and everybody else who could not be here because they are at work and students and because they can't afford to come down here at this time. i would like to echo everything that was said before me and i would also like to include that we are not in a housing crisis. we are an in affordable housing crisis. we have an abundance of market units empty, and what we need is affordable housing to get people off the street, to stabilize our community so people can go to work and school. people here do not want anything for free but be able to live with a roof over their heads.

>> next speaker. >> my name is katrina lee and i'm the community organizer but today i'm speaking as a community member as a long-time volunteer for the philippino community member in the excelsio resource. excelsior. i'm here with all of those who cannot afford to be here to say no to the 65 ocean avenue development. the excelsior is one of the last makeneighbors in sanneighborhoo. this neighborhood over the years has learned not only to coexist but stand by each other and hold one another down, despite it being seen as the new hot place to live. 65 ocean does not fit with the rest of the neighborhood in that the developers do not possess it to work aside community members. it had to learn about this evil

on their own or community-based organizations. the development knows this will come with the mobilization with hundreds of people who do not see themselves in luxury housing or studio apartments and who do not see themselves in a project that will set a dangerous precedent against the childcare and preschools next to this proposed development. that is why i u yo urge you allo push for a development at 65 ocean. and the concerns are genuinely heard and acted upon and we hope you can be a champion for the te excelsior community residents. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item?

with that, general public comment is closed. so i will then ask director rand about the planning process and where we're at with that. we heard about that over a year ago and i think it would be a good thing to hear it. >> sure. i will get back tow on a report on the status and, perhaps, we can schedule a hearing on that process. >> ok, thank you. >> any other commissioner comments? commission johnson. >> of course, i think it's important to just recognise all of the folks that did come out and who did come out to hear or to share -- sorry, it's hot -- to share your lived experience, your concern and hopes for your community. we have heard a clear call that you are looking for a response from us and we look forward to

sending that response. thank you. >> thank you so much and thank you, everyone, for coming. (speaking spanish). >> commissioners, given the heat, i have had a request to look into the board of supervisors -- given the heat in this room, i've had a request to see if the board of supervisors' chambers are available. it would require, probably, a half hour break in the hearing to move us down there. but if that's desirable, then -- >> let's do it! >> we need permission from the clerk directly so i'll look into that as we proceed with that hearing, please. >> can we take a break, then, while you're doing that? >> oh, you're just doing that. >> under your regular calendar for case903pha for the subphase 1c, c.2.1 and 4 and this is a

presentational hearing. >> i'm kristy alexander and we're here to provide a presentation on your treasure island development project which was approved by the board of supervisors in join of 2011 punt t20 punt20pursuant to a developt agreement. this is required when any building is proposed over 70 feet in height. that qualifies to the development. because this is the first time coming before the commission since it was approved, i have provided in the commission memo a brief overview of the treasure island project as a whole, including the amount of market rate and affordable housing and community benefits proposed anniandapproved to date. except for projects seeking a

major modification to the design standards and guidelines, planning staff reviewing all projects and confirms compliance with the special utilization district and the development agreement. we make recollections put in a staff report and sent to the planning terror. director. he approves the project design based on compliance. in may of this year, the first schematic design proposals were submitted for two buildings over 70 feet in height which required this type of informational hearing. you will be hearing from us in the future, as well, when other buildings are submit ed this ar. we ask the public commission to bring your focus to the design of the two residential buildings which are referred to as block c2.1 and c2.4. the proposal for block c2.1

includes a 31-story, 315-foot top building with 265 residential unit and 190 parking spaces. the building materials proposed include folding glass fiber, reinforced concrete on the tower and masonry material at the residential base with recessed balconies. the proposal for block c.24 includes new construction of approximately 19 stories, 204-foot building with 248 residential units, ground floor rotatretail and it includes pann the tower and thin brick at the residential base with a storefront with the portion. both buildings comply with this and the city to approve an application is limited to its application of the quality that

is subjective elements in the deparde, such as related to the building materials. section 4 of the development agreement states that the city does not have the discretion to disapprove or recommend modification to the aspects of a building that meets the quantity daytive or objective standards. so the project sponsor would now like to make a presentation and then planning staff would like to gather comments from the public and commission on the proposed design of these two buildings that qualify as large projects before we take them to the planning director for review and this concludes my presentation and i'll be available, as well as our staff architect who is also in attendance to answer my questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you.

>> first, a particular thank you for hearing us in this heat. it's going to be a long day for you. i'm here on behalf of treasure island community development, the joint venture partnering with sanfrancisco on the redevelopment of treasure island. we have been before you and other policy makers many times over many years. but we are particularly pleased to be here today to discuss the first vertical building's plan that is the very key on treasure island. we call this the first district. to recap our history before you,

we began the current effort to master plan treasure island and the formal master planning effort kicked off in 2006. the project completed its environmental review and was entitled in 2011. the project is a plan that sought to put in place a master plan and then have a series of steps master plan approval followed by with its development agreement, followed by a series of major phases so that we could take the project in bites. today, we have processed the first major phase. we are doing the utility and infrastructure work on the island today. we have started the first building on your buena island and what we are here to talk about the first new buildings that will be constructed on

treasure island. we look forward to delivering new homes in 2021 and 2022. to briefly recap the master plan, it provides us to develop 8,000 new homes in what will be a transformative neighborhood in sanfrancisco and 24 are affordable. those are accomplished in two ways, both through inclusionary and 100% affordable buildings built in partnership with the mayor's office of housing. there's 300 acres of open space san the projecand the project hn designated lead and deed platinum. there are multiple modes of public transportation that will serve treasure island, but the ferry connection to the ferry building in san francisco is an important centrepiece of that plan, certainly a romantic centrepiece and you see before

you a rendering of what the fully built-out d for d plan would look like from the city shore. so we talked about the whole master plan and what you see highlighted before you is actually on this slide, is actually the first district. that's a portion of which we're here to talk about today. if you were stand on the embarcadero today and look across the water, that area is currently under construction. emthithis is a blow-up of this e area and you see that it begins with what we call building one, the historic passenger terminal. on right side, the small chapel repumperepumped as a park and tr buildings.

there are ten residential building pads. of those ten pads, consistent with the affordable housing plan for the project, there are two parcels that are set aside in being developed in 100% affordable project and the other eight are being developed as market rate with inclusionary homes. so we're here to talk about only two buildings today. but it is our first time to come before you and we want to share a process that we've been going through now for a fairly long time with staff and one that, frankly, we think has served us very well. if you can go to the next slide

for me, please. i'll start by giving a bit of context here. in our many years of discussions with so many of the various stakeholders at the city, the cab, this commission and others, the staff, i think all of us involved in this project developed a desire as an authentic place, a place that is of our time, but one that was designed by many hands. and so, for the first district, we were fortunate enough tone to engage one of san francisco's first architect. go back one. as much of these people are in the room today and they're here to support the team that's up in front of you, each team is designing a different building but the process had them come together to really engage in a dialogue that we found to be really, really additive. so while we're here to talk about two buildings, i'm going

to quickly -- i'll go right to left at the top of the page. behind building one, natoma architects, stanley fatowitz designed that residential building and mark determinant ovenyercovenye rockand we did ne design of the affordable housing projects. that one of the things we love is that the target the architecs volunteered to participate in our process and were super active in engaging with us and so that included both dan solomon and his crew and paulettetaggart and we'll hear from david baker today and perkins and will in partnership with the kennerlys and ed

pujeron with gonzalez targets. architect. we have completed design on nine which have been taken up as a piece. so we're about to show you two of those buildings in detail so that we can take your comment. these are the renderings of the buildings that have so far been conceptual designed when seen with ghosted in behind it, the desire d for d footprint and the next rendering shows you the buildings that have been designed in this first district without that ghosting in of the future and finally, the four buildings that will be built first by us and then the affordable housing project by swords to plow shares next store

and that's what you will see next. so with that, and thank you for allowing me to provide that context. with that, glenn will tell you about the first of our two buildings. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with handell architect. i would like to say it's been a rewarding process and i want to acknowledge the leadership of glenn hartman for putting together a master plan that we were all able to work towards. it was a very collaborative process work wig working with f talented architects and the planning department made this process rewarding. the site we're doing is c2.1. the site is about 50,000 square feet. the tower footprint is 5,000 square feet and it's mainly the podium and outdoor space. we have approximately 265 units in the building.

our parking is below grade and we've brought our parkin parkinn from seven seas, directly at the top of of the screen and in our entryway, it's kitty-corner to the neighborhood park on the northwest corner. the interesting thing about the site is that it's not a northagonal site. it's part of the master plan design. when you look at the tower, we have a tower with a complicated geometry and it has a bit of rotation to it and anchors the corner. next slide. this is a view of the tower anchoring the cone of seven seas. the way we've designed the building, the tower becomes this sort of element that sets up a gateway into the space. the podium itself, we've sort of made the analogy because the

treasure island has been a man-made sort of environment, it's more of a carved out expression. as we pointed out earlier, the materials will be that the base along with many of the other buildings is in a light pallette masonry material and the tower will be in a precast, polished with metal andaluminum and glass. (please stand by).

>> the exterior façade will have an undulating feature to it,

therefore trying to create some sort of refractions of light as the building rises from the fourth floor to the 305th -- 301st floor. with that, i will handed over to david baker architects for their presentation. >> thank you, commissioners. daniel simons with david baker architects. i wanted to say how much fun the process has been. we have been -- we have had a very wonderful design collaboration. we really embrace the vision of solid goldings that had a permanence to them but were really light in color. next slide. our site is right on the park and along the shared public way there is a strong 40-foot high

building. facing san francisco there is a really strong datum of 60-foot high buildings. we struggled with how our tower would interact with those datum his, and rather than have them break them, we raised the tower up and let them wrap around so they face the park, and then the gap between them becomes an atrium that you enter into the building. the tower itself, to maximize views of san francisco, we -- it is a series of bays that orient towards san francisco. next slide. you can see down here from the corner looking up, it drops around and how it still feels there's a continuation of the tower elevated above it. the gap that is created is a common amenity space for the building, so then it opens up to the roof deck to have amazing views of san francisco at the

golden gate marine county. we also spent a lot of time thinking about the ground floor. we have raised stoops for residential units and we felt that this block could have more of an urban presence and put in these units that were flush with the street. it has a blend of commercial and residential feel so that they could, at some point in the future, put in more commercial uses. there is one retail space on the corner, which is the first retail space in the block, and as this neighborhood develops, there will be more retail, but this will be a very important retail space in the first phase. >> how much more do you have? how much more in your presentation? >> i'm done. >> thanks very much.

>> i would like to open this up for public comment. would anyone from the public like to comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner moore? >> could you show us the fantastic beginning, i am very excited to see this becoming real. when i come to the side, coming over the causeway, where do i arrive? i am glad they are starting more in the center rather than taking the most prominent first seat. what do i see when i drive up to the facility? >> can you show me the slide that has the four buildings? if you will give me one second.

how do i click this on? okay. what i want is the site plan, it shows the district plan. this will be fine. so what this shows you is the first district. building one is on the right, that is the historic building, and what is currently there is all the way across through the three blocks of residential. the buildings that we are talking about today are the four buildings that are immediately to the left of the cultural park

so the idea here is that we are building, and will open in 2021, the ferry key that you see down below you, and including a plaza designed by andy cochrane that will be the forecourt to building one. next to it, cheryl barton has designed a park we call the cultural park with a chapel, which will just be lightly touched up. the chapel is really intended to be a cultural meeting hall and talking place. and then the four buildings that will be the first floor buildings are those four buildings. they have been chosen that way because those are the four closest buildings to the ferry key and the multimodal transit hub, meaning where our buses will be, and to oakland and in on island shuttle bus that will embark and disembark right in

front of the ferry key. i will note that in front of those buildings, there is a white block. that is a future hotel site that i have no ability to forecast when that will be feasible, and so what you will get there is actually the park designed by c.m.g. that will stretch across. so come 2022, it will be those four buildings, the cultural part down to the ferry key. does that respond? >> that exactly answers a question. i would love to see a drawing on that. you are completing the district and that is the most important answer i was looking for. >> the idea -- it came from some of the comments that we got many years ago is we are starting with these core blocks, and then the phasing plan will have us move out from there. we are moving out and leaving a

core development. >> thank you so much. that is a great answer. >> commissioner fun? fung? >> since it wasn't part of the informational presentation on the planning portion -- >> i can't hear you. >> reading your brief indicates that we are relegating only the materials, i mean there is nothing else that the commission should be looking at. >> we can't go into the specifics of the development agreement, we can't go into the quantitative or objective standards, but we can go into qualitative or subjective elements. >> remember this is a developing

agreement that had a whole deed for deed and it is essentially the zoning for the site. it is very similar to saying that we can't change the zoning on the site. what the d.a. is saying is we can't alter the height or bulk requirements which would be comparable to changing the zoning. i think that is the parallel here. it allows you to comment on it subjectively on the design and advising the on the plans, but you can't change the height or lower the height limit. >> it was substantially change the whole project. >> okay. you are requesting -- >> any design comments you may have on these two buildings. >> normally planning, if you are asking for that phase of the design, sort of towards the end of the design phase, and you were asking for comments on

materials, politic, detailing, and things like that, there's larger scale drawings of that. i don't see any of this in the packet. is that coming later? >> within the packet -- >> the color palette, the details? >> they may have not included that in their renderings. >> it is only renderings, yeah. >> they do have some material here if you want to give a minute to present those right now. >> would you like to see that, commissioner? >> probably not. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i'm just asking the question as to your expectations. >> so usually the staff, we are using -- doing all the designer stuff ourselves. it is just the d.a. requires anything over 70 feet because it

will be more prominent from the cityscape that the planning commission weigh in on a design comment you want to offer that we can then take to the planning director. >> commissioner kabul? >> i really like what i saw today. i know this has been in the works for a long time and you didn't let us down. you came through with an extremely all start list of architects and i'm really pleased with what i see so far. i'm looking forward to seeing stuff later. >> commissioner hillis? >> i am echoing those thanks. i appreciate the presentation. i know a lot of us were involved in this. i think mr. meaney at the time said he was striving for superior architecture not just in the buildings, but on the ground floor of the buildings, and the public spaces. it is amazing to see the transformation and what is planned here. there is a construction happening out there, i don't know if you have been out there,

but it has transformed the island. i am excited to see this develop and in letting great architects design these buildings and these public spaces, not necessarily doing them by committee or up here as a commission, i'm excited by what i see, you know, it is good to hear about the ferry building. the ferry terminal is actually on target for 2021. is that correct? i think that is a critical need for the island in getting people there and making these buildings marketable, but it is great to see this vision coming together and being built. thank you for the presentation. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> to expand and what commissioner hillis just said, this is a rarity that san francisco takes from being out to the table and not just famous this is much of san francisco as part and knees to be.

the planning process was more than thorough. there were two massive plans that the, overturned -- that this -- that the c.a.c. overturned. >> okay. >> thanks, i just wanted to take

in a comment that you had. any comments would be appreciated. i want to express my appreciation for the process. it is a large process for how they coordinate to design the buildings together and i just want to express appreciation for that process. i think it has worked really well. it seems like a ghost did not get in the way, and i also appreciate that. maybe if i was a fly on the wall for those meetings i would think differently, but i think the process has worked quite well. i just want to express appreciation for that. thank you. >> thank you. >> if nothing further, we can move on to item 13 for the executive directive on housing report informational presentation.

>> no? >> did the monitors blow up? >> good afternoon, commissioners i am pleased to be joining you

on this balmy summer afternoon to go over some status reports of our process improvement work under the mayor's executive directive from 2017 of september can we get the slides, please? a little bit of background, we have the executive directive -- >> san francisco government, can you go to the computer, please? >> we had the directive in 2017 to streamline our permitting of housing projects, in particular, it says approval time frames for the housing project that range from six to 22 months depending on the environmental review, and requires the planning department , among other property -- departments to process improvement plan. will be speaking to you about the status of those efforts today. the plan was broken into two different categories, which by now we all know and love and i will be going through those as we go over the improvements. i want to point out the two page

summary list that i handed around along with the slides, it gives an overview of the items that were in the process improvement plan and where they are today. most of them are in effect and have been implemented, and we're still working on two of them. first and foremost, the core foundation of the way we are going to speed up housing approvals is to consolidate our review process under one project application, where throughout the entire process of planning department is speaking with one voice from environmental, planning division, current planning division, design review , all that is having -- happening simultaneously and concurrently. i will go through the steps and talk to about how we're doing on our time frames going from the p.p.a., all the way through approval. this lovely table illustrates some of those time frames. the first one is the plume there project application. we moved the timeframe down to 60 days from 90 days. we pretty much there. on average were at 62 days, which is pretty close. and almost two thirds of the

time we are getting them issued on time. that scenario keeps improving. the next step in the process, once a project comes in, we have 30 days to tell them whether their application is complete or not. if it is not, we receive a notice of incomplete application so we can keep moving ahead. we give ourselves 30 days for that. we do it on average about 18 days. 90% of the time we are meeting that mark. kudos go to our planner technicians and support staff who have been making sure we are on top of that day in and day out to get to those numbers. i was promised that we will be at 100% by the next report, we will see. finally, the plan check letter is where we get more complicated we do the full planning code review, would get into the details, we give ourselves 90 days to respond to an applicant with a complete project application in order to indicate what code compliance and design issues are missing and what information is missing so we can start the viral to review process.

only half the time you're getting out on time. that is our biggest area of improvement, which is we need to keep working on because that is the most complex, that is the meat of the process. there's a lot going on at that time. that is how we are doing along the way through project review, but what about the actual approvals? this chart looks at it a different way, which is just saying, of all the projects that are filed since june of last year, which is when we implement it all of this, where are all of those projects in the workflow? so just a does the couple that have been submitted. the bulk of them are sitting there, having their applications reviewed to see if the application is complete. we're getting that done in a timely basis. those should move forward quickly. about 30% are waiting for the plan check letters. i want to highlight this group. out of all of those projects that are -- that have the plan check letters issued, 30% -- we

have given them their feedback, and the question is, why are we not starting environment a review, that is because we told the project exactly what we need from them and we either haven't heard back or we have not gotten response that meets all the things that we need, or we having a back-and-forth about design, community concern, all the things that need to be ironed out before making these decisions before we do the work. and now out of all of those projects, on average they are sitting there for about seven months. it is important to highlight we do everything we can on our end, what is it two way or possibly three way street when it comes to what is actually helping us or not helping us get to the milestones. finally, of all the projects that have been reproved -- approved since we launch the new process, we have gotten all of them approved within the time frames and have not yet had to issue any delay notices to the planning commission, which i'll describe later. overall, of the projects that

have come in since we launched, it seems to be working, we will see how we can do it to continue to move through some of the bigger and more complicated projects that come in the door. does a couple of other things to note in the world of application intake and review, as you all recall in the world of neighborhood notice, we did some streamlining in 2017 where we consolidated about 30 different requirements into about six. we have all of our notices online. you can look of notices for different properties and you can even sign up for e-mail alerts. i have been getting them frequently lately, and we are mailing all cases. we'll be moving into another step of this year which is to redesign the notice material themselves. primarily to make them clearer and more understandable and in multiple languages. it is a little hard to understand what is going on. so we are working on that and we are also making it more

accessible so they are more likely to be seen it rather than go into the recycling bin or trash. our goal is to make it easier on staff so we are spending our time on planning rather than generating notices. moving on to environmental and design review, i'm happy to report on a pilot program that we launched in january and the realm of historic preservation. it is a preproject application, you can ask, hey, it says a historic status is unknown. can you tell me if the historic -- if it is historic or not? we issued 27 letters. we have those on average 61 days we are able to get this done in the time we thought. the most encouraging thing that i thought is in all the two cases, in all but one case, we can make a determination one way or another, and we are able to say, it is not historic resource

, now you're comfortable saying is a fee, not a resource, which means you have more certainty moving on and we have said we will have to get more information from you when you come in. >> we have tried to consolidate things we do make it more user-friendly. there is an online travel demand estimator tool that is posted on the website, is consolidate -- -- it consolidated technical and static spread seats that have travel demand data into one single online user from a tool that is publicly available. the point of this is to expedite transportation analysis which is typically the most robust and complex and often time-consuming part of environmental review. we are very encouraged we're able to work on that.

we have actually split the project into different buckets and we are no longer requiring a full transportation impact study because we have been able to use the existing standards under the program to move those forward. also in the area of environmental review, we standardize some of the standard asian measures that work. rather than having project by project and asking ourselves as if it is the first time we have ever confronted these issues, and generating a document that is consultant based assessment. they need to come to the planning commission for your advice and approval.

you have a code compliant project that you actually want to stick with. let's actually get the environment overview completed, let's get you approved between six and 22 months depending on it is an exemption or e.i.r., and if those projects do not, if they are delayed, then they will not be able to get you at the commission by the target date, then will be issuing a project status report indicating briefly what the issue is. hopefully we will have more transparency about what it is that causes delays when they do happen. we haven't had to do that yet, what we have been on track. the next target date we have is january of 2020. if you hear from us in october, you will know that we got delayed on one of them. finally, our administration and technology team is constantly cranking out little miracle

fixes and tools for us to use. we are really blessed to have a great creative team working in-house with us a planning. and a couple of things, one of the biggest things, online submittal for all of our different application types is live. we launched in may and the story , a new project application can be submitted on there. we can get back to say you are missing a few things, we can log back into your account, submit them, and we are hoping this will be not only timesaving to applicants, but help us to enforce the new consolidated process and get better data by having that tool right there rather than having data be entered multiple different times and having human error. on our website now there is a business zoning check tool. if you wanted to open a coffee shop and he didn't know how to start, you could type in the colloquial foot and hair salon

and it will say, did you mean a general retail establishment, not with more than 11 units worldwide? and they will say yes, i think so. it will tell you where you can do it, where it is conditionally permitted and where you can't do it. there's a lot of red, which means you can't do whatever that was in most of the city, but this is a complement to go into the planning information centre so people have more information to go off of when they call us rather then, helped me, i waited for 30 minutes to see you, and i don't know what i'm here for. they are more headed in the right direction. and we also have an online impact fee calculator tool that is helping our planners do are very complex and numerous impact fee calculations in a more consistent manner that indicates how we got there on each impact fee. all those things small and large , they add up to our planners been able to spend more time doing planning, talking with you, talking with the community, thinking about what good planning looks like, rather

than spending their time uncle located items that we have to address. we are encouraged on what we have been able to do the past year or so and we look forward to keeping you up-to-date as we move forward. i am here for any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. any questions? sorry, it's so hot, we will now take public comment on this item any members of the public want to provide comment? >> thank you, commissioners. i will be the town curmudgeon again, i'm afraid. these are all great tools and great processes, but the bottom line is it's not resulting in any timesaving that i can see at the bottom -- at the backend, and i think there's two big reasons for that.

one is that the planning department is not starting environmental review until something like a year after projects come in the door. just following if a product applicant -- the processes before you on his presentation have a total of seven months of planning department processes before they will begin environmental review. that doesn't include the time that the applicant needs between those processes to respond, for example, after a p.t.a. letter goes out, you have to do a pre application meeting in the community before you can file an application. that takes a month or two, and then once you get your project application completion notice, then you have to add some material that can take 30 days. once you get your plan check letter, it can take several months to revise your project application. they are very detailed comments.

we will go down to the location of doors and the size of the windows. things that are not necessarily needed to begin an environmental review. the mayor's directive, six months, nine months, up to 22 months, doesn't commence until about a year after the application is in the door. so i urge do you and my recommendation to the staff is to consolidate some of those early requirements such as the 90 days for the primary assessment and try to get that down to 30 days. you have a sixty-day pba process and a 90 day plan check process. i think those can be shrunk considerably. secondly, i think we need to look at those six months and nine months, up to 22 months after environmental review starts. particularly for projects that are with sequel. i must applaud the planning department for being aggressive about issuing sequel exemptions because there are so many that apply in an urban environment, but there's no reason that in

nine months that there should be an exemption. it is a checklist. so after all this year-long process over planning a project, staff is giving themselves nine months to create a checklist. i think that really needs to look at reducing the nine month for exemptions down to something like three months. it shouldn't take nine months to make a checklist for exempt projects. thank you. >> thank you. miss hester? >> i feel the breeze right here. what you are shown i haven't a clue on because what i got one i requested this planning department to send me the staff report for the meeting was this and it's very different from the

flashy show that we got. one of the problems with the planning department is the website shows planning -- toys for the planning department, and the public can't find it because it doesn't have any consultation , were the planning department does not consult with the public. consulting with the clan is not the same thing as the real people. with this hearing that you just had, it was two hours ago. those are the public and they are very concerned about housing i'm very concerned about housing and very concerned about building housing, but the housing i pay attention to and existing housing