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 dont want it to just be an excavation project and they put a backhoe on it and thats 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 id 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, were never going to get where were 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, theres 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 its the size of the project or not. Its actually not phasing, its theres a site permit which is typically first, and then there are what are called addendum, and then, theres the electrical or the mechanical or that sort of thing. It wouldnt be built in sort of phases, per se, its just how the permits are issued. Commissioner johnson so i guess my question is, the theres a series of addendum, and they require permits that come from other departments. And im 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 its still just an empty lot with, like, a shovel in the ground to count as, like, theyre 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 theres 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 its 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 doesnt 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 Departments 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, wed be able to come back here and talk about how much progress weve made and hopefully be able to talk about getting ready or maybe weve 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 id 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 youd like to talk about what may be acceptable. Vice president richards just as an aside, i look for to dbis response. Commissioner moore . Commissioner moore architect bob, would you mind coming to the microphone. Schematic design goes into Vice President richards ill apologize. One thing is because of the changes weve made in the very recent future, weve 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 doesnt give us the right to put a shovel in the ground, right . Weve then got to go through the addendum process, and its hard to say today, exactly you know, i think youre 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 its actually hard to say when we could start digging in the ground. Commissioner moore actually, why dont you go through the schematic in the ground, you havent done any working drawings on this project, i assume, to put this into the reality of whats happening at dbi and the rest of the city, theres 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. Its impossible to find anybody bidding on anything. Okay. I didnt understand your question exactly at first. So again, we have not we have some Schematic Design to complete because weve revised the design. Once we do that, we go into Design Development, go into the systems, start to engineer the project. We really havent 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 cant 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 its you know, as mark loper says, if theres 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 Attorneys 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, thats 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 dont 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. Its 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 didnt 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 mayors 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 its 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 doesnt apply for the renewal beyond the three years, then theres a hearing, and what im saying is strengthen that to have a hearing and deny the permit deny the entitlement if theres 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 im 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 theres a an application to reauthorize the entitlement, but there has to not actual progress on thE Construction of the project. Commissioners, maybe instead of trying to craft specific metrics, the thing to be to say you prefer to have a hearing in two years. Its your discretion to revoke or not. You could consider the progress, whether there was applications made, whether there was due diligences, if there were delays caused by other entities, and you could choose not to revoke or you could choose to extend that deadline, or you could choose to revoke. Scheduling a revocation hearing doesnt mean you automatically have to revoke. Commissioner johnson right. I would just to i would just make clear, rather than trying to craft specific time frames that i think were not it would be very challenging, you could simply say well have a hearing in two years and consider reviewation. Commissioner johnson okay. Revocation. Commissioner johnson okay. I think thats clear to me. Number 2, theres even today, we cant constrain a future commission on what they will or will not do, but i do think that we need to be specific in changing the wording here to actually schedule the hearing, cause this said is not scheduled unless the project sponsor does not reapply for authorization of their entitlement, which im assuming they would. They would put in their application saying whatever the case is happening, so i say that the hearing should happen regardless and if everythings going swimmingly, then it either gets continued or taken off the calendar or theres a no vote at the hearing. I think in terms of the may mayors directive, this is one thing that this commission should be scheduling on every single project, is scheduling a hearing two years out, instead of having it float for two years and come back for renewal. I think thats an incredible powerful change that we could make. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore i think before i would approval, i would rely on some professionals like the architects and the professionals of the trade to give us some reality of what that means. By this commission to craft that at this point, i could not support it, because i asked the architect using a standard experience of what it takes in these typical cycles of Schematic Design, Design Development and construction drawings to say what is standardly described as three years. Its in the interests of any developer of any architect to get this stuff out as quickly as possible, because all it does, it takes more money and more time, spinning your wheels. And i think we would be advised to talk to the trades, talk to the professionals, rather than making this thing up as finger in the wind, because i do believe that the mayors reminder to us to be more efficient is important. We need to listen to it, but its not going to be decided here, and i cannot participate in that kind of a discussion. Vice president Richards Commission commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson i would just say the mayor did not remind anyone of anything. He says there is a staff that puts out strategies, not a reminder. Vice president Richards Commissioner fong . Commissioner fong so i made a motion to approve with as all of the conditions with regarding safety of the school next door, protection of the skood next door. Commissioner johnson, i appreciate your idea. I think it is cutting edge. I do agree with you, commissioner richards, that if going forward, theres something similar to that. But i also agree with commissioner moore it is too complex and difficult with this ta tangled to let this be the first project. I think this has a lot to do with the trades with economy pricing, and there could be some Great Projects coming forward with great sponsors, but they are for whatever reason held up due to forces beyond their control, so my motion to approve still stands. I dont want to support the revocation at the moment, and im looking for someone to if i could make a couple of suggestions that you may want Td Commission number one to say upe years and condition number two s commissioner johnson suggested r than having these sort of preco, that that the hearing would occd the commission could consider b9 project for construction and poe grounds for revocation to change wording of Commission Number tw. For the commission to consider revocation revocation of the authorization and consider the s this is a conditional use authorization. Shame on you for calling the. Go ahead. Good evening, commissioners,e project is to establish as condl use authorization to establish a restaurant use called butter an, in an existing commercial spacee corner of 17th and church stree. This space is limited in existig limited commercial use space wia residential zoning district. And per the regulations for limd commercial use, the most restrie neighborhood commercial use stas apply. A when looking at these commercia. Since this project is within a r mieflt castro and thmile of thea conditional use authorization. The project is on the ground fla mixeduse building. While currently vacant, it was t recently used as a laundromat. This concludes the special repo. Thank you, project sponsor. Good evening, samomay bujohd. I live in the neighborhood. Six months after i moved in, rub closed. They were closed even before i d speaking to the landlord. There are two other laundromatsn that block. 17th laundry is on the corner eh and sanchez. Everyone ive we spoke ton has n favor of the project in the neighborhood. Nobody came our neighborhood meo object in any way. The only instance that we heardm anybody is actually an email of support for the addition of my t in the neighborhood. I completely understand the conn regards to laundromats. I myself have gone many a mile y laundry, but in this particular instance, having the space beend for so long and there being two laundromats in good working ordn a block of the space and the otr laundromat being closed for so i dont ski an applicable issue. President hillis opening itr Public Comment. Seeing none, looking for a motir approval. I mak make a motion we appro. Second. On that motion, commissionero approve, commissioner fong. Did we call Public Comment 1. Yes. Commissioner fong. Aye. Commissioner melgar. Aye. Commissioner richard