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 doesnt necessarily work, so the state hasnt been able to pass that, but i think its an unfortunate quirk in the state law that were actually increasing density here and allowing for more units in the Affordable Housing percentage goes down. But its just an area we dont have any control. I mean, we can stand here and shake our fist at that one, but theres 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. Im 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 its 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 its a tradeoff given the fact that weve been advised we cant trim much of the mass off this project. So im supportive of housing here, and i think i think were a bit our hands are a bit tied on some of the issues surrounding affordablity. Commissioner richards . Richar supervisor its been a long process. Its, at times, been contentious, but hopefully, it will be coming to an end here today. Im 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 doesnt 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 were 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, im 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 dont know what the impacts 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 theres 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 dont know what that means . If you have a twoyearold around, does that mean theyre going to be hurt in any way . Construction noise, implement a set of noise atenuation measures. Just one other thing. I noted mr. Smiths testimony about where we are in the city and the things that we need to do, as well as mr. Tim colon. Sorry. Youve 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, were 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 isnt it getting built is the question i want to ask. Theres got to be a question somewhere. Development impacts communities, absolutely. Theres things to be said on both sides of that. I think theres economic and social impacts. Weve seen that from u. C. Berkeley. We also see on the flip side that if we dont 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 weve seen here today. This is a challenging project, and ill 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 thats something that i want to start off by saying today, and well 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. Thats a box weve been put in, which is really unfortunate. In a world where state law wasnt what it was, and our constraints werent where they were, i would be sitting here saying send it back unless theres more, but its 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 theres also an Affordable Housing act, that commissioner melgar didnt mention, we are in risk of a lawsuit if we disapprove projects where we havent made very specific findings that pertain to codes that are written down, not ones that weve just made up up here, so ill probably be asking and appropriating and, i think theres 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 theres a lot that constrains us that we dont always actively talk about, so people come and they say see, see you, and they think theres other things we can do with the project other than the up or down vote, and theres very little. It seems like this project, its either this project, its up, or its down, and its 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 Mayors 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 Mayors Office on housing that they did consider that, but the stated price by the developer was just too high for their fund, so thats another constraint thats on us. Thats perfect, and thats what we would love to do, but if the people that control those Purse Strings say its too expensive, then its challenging for us. And the only other thought that i would offer at this moment, and again, well see where we land, because i dont know that im 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 havent been built, theres 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 theres the mayors 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 thats something we can do as part of the conditions of this project. But thats something that i would totally advocate for if there is support for approving this project today. So thats my thoughts, and maybe well end up going back around. President hillis any other commissioners . Supervisor okay. Ill ask the City Attorney while were sitting here, like, the ideal on the revocation hearing. Commissioner kate stacey in the City Attorneys office. I am not sure what it provides for in the conditional use. I thought it was three years, but im 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 cant be 18 months, it has to be three years, entitlements dont 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 thats the time frame typically for the conditional use. And i believe that we this is standard language in most of your motions, so its not something actually in the code, but it is part of the motion, just to be clear. So and its its consider to be its on page 27 of your packet. Its 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 doesnt 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 theres a couple things. So terms of the condition on the revocation hearing, which is an issue that ive been throwing out for a while there, i do want to question whether or not it has to remain three years cause thats whats 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 weve 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 youre 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 doesnt necessarily mean that theres going to be a building on that site. So im just trying to use this project as a way to start having those discussions. And im telling you about other housing projects where i think there is the will and the way to build them, and i dont 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 weve 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 im sorry. Go ahead, kate. Commissioners, kate stacey in the City Attorneys 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. Thats how weve typically operated. Supervisor certainly. President hillis certainly. Commissioner melgar medic. Commissioner melgar i do think theres a correlation between the expectations of the neighborhoods and the expectations of the market value of this developer. I also think we its 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 thats 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 theres i dont necessarily, at this point, see the i dont know that im supportive right now, but theres 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 theres 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. Youre 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 dont know that theyre proposing to do less in the construction methods in that project which was a very similar level of impact. And then, again, im not sure where im 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, theres actually only a few things that we can do anything about. Im 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 dont remember the name. [ inaudible ] i dont remember the name of the school, im sorry, was that both of the schools came and see these are the mutt gass wed like to see. Well start with windows and light and dusts and all of that stuff, and id 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 dont think thats 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 dont want my kids to be in the dark, so i dont 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 dont know how you can get away from the noise buffer in a Construction Zone. I cant 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 dont know what the construction process would be like that would affect our students. After that, if im hearing a three year im not all up to i know letters, because i teach kids letters, but i dont 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 . Thats an impact that i wont know until i see what happens to them later on, and with the gentrific