month period to actually begin construction. you have a policy in terms to guide us in how to apply that. that's where the time figure comes. particularly hill. our projects that are just because of their own nature you choose to apply a certain performance period that is 8 years, 2 years, 5 years. >> the projects we are talking about that the 3 years. the 18 month projects are not on this list? >> correct. the projects should you adopt are only those that are not subject to code requirements and special condition requirements. >> thank you. and apply to the

law today los angeles laws that have passed and sometimes it does practically change the design. sometimes there are differences in code that really make that change and it might be to the detriment of how we might see the design. i think it would be useful in your analysis to look at some of those projects and where the code has changed and how that can be impacted in the over all project design. i'm all fore this kind of 60 day window process because i don't particularly find our discussion as particularly robust until they come back for extension but it's worth having a hearing if we choose those projects to review drawings. i recognize the challenges that what they may not -- people might opt in the process

without actually being quite building permit ready. that's the challenge we have when people come for a 3 year entitlement. what they may come for a 3 year extension may not manifest when they do build. that's something we should have a whole separate discussion if the issue of design and outcome is changed. it's truly the change when we have extending. >> first i would like to thank staff the changes to the proposal are great. i think it's much more clear. i want to get clarity on the process the way it exist today. the project sponsors can always come back for an extension hearing, is that correct? you can come back however many times you need to come back.

>> that is correct as long as they continue with the law of the day. >> the law of the day is consistent advice from the attorney to always implement law of the day. i want to ask then if this program were to be adopted what would the internal staff be on zoning and changes? >> it would be the same for projects that wouldn't have exceeded their performance period. when we get a bill with your authorizations, we look at whether or not it's in general conformity with your approval and with the planning code and with the guidelines. that process would be so you

choose to prove. >> the 18 month is it from the day we sign the policy? >> it starts on the day you adopt the policy. fits if it's a draft policy you can change that. >> i have a couple comments. there is a process that exist today and it works. so regardless of whether or not we adopt this process, project sponsors can always come back and ask for extension. so even if we adopted this and a project didn't opt in they could still come back and ask for an extension with a hearing, correct? then there is a separate conversation about whether or not 3 years is the correct number of years, we are not talking about that

today. in january there is a proposal for extension for 6 years. if that is a conversation to have in the future, i would like to see really robust research in terms of data and the process of how the years were determined. so i think we are not quite ready for that conversation yet. i want to reiterate that. so as far as the the tightening of the language it mirrors what they are already doing, it just makes it a little bit more clear that project sponsors don't have an entitlement after 3 years. as for the program i am open to the idea of some sort of

stimulus program that present offered by the recession but there needs to be proof. there really needs to be a strong correlation to me for the need really that projects would have to come back. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like for this to be researched more and i want it clarified how we do it and why we do it and echo your question commissioner wu in the situation we are discussing and for clarity of the public it should be in general terms stated. because any of these

opt inns seem to be not familiar which needs to be clear for all of us. on the other hand, extending the time frames. i would like to hear from somebody what it means to have a hypothetical city. the entitlements we make here are for projects and other uses and 6 or 8 years not built and leaves us with those sites that are not build. and there is a certainly ability for any of us to extend a friendly loan to a friend until we just can't do it anymore. i think i would like somebody to really speak to that sometimes. it's like an economic health between

extending entitlements and benefit of change in use and fully built city and that is when we are doing the right thing. but as we are highly theoretical about the projects we have just heard about some already more than 8 years, i'm starting to wonder if you are answer that question in some form or another. >> i think it would be beneficial to talk to mr. keg ran and others about errors and omissions and we don't need to have conversation but you might want to talk to him where he can give you examples of a situation where a project was not able to move forward through not fault of it's own and that's why it might be an exception today. also i agree

with commissioner hills. that those that came to ask for an extension and because they did i don't see a reason why if we work it to be able to allow them to take advantage of the stimulus. the third part is i don't think we necessarily have to show the projects were necessarily impacted by the down turn. there could be a lot of reasons why this projects wasn't built. this was supposed to be a stimulus. we have a shortage of houses and everybody wants to see the spaces filled and we are trying to get builders to move ahead particularly with 18 month performance period and could be 90 days but a short period of time from the time the policy is passed and then they have to

a vail themselves of this. it's very carefully designed to get sponsors with entitled projects to move. i think it still would exist that if a project did not wish to a vail themselves to the stimulus they can still review the process of coming back after three years. in fact as you pointed out, they would have to come forward to give them an extension and that probably is consistent with the law. whether the 3 years is a realistic period or not. if you are going to have a period of time where it's 3 or 5 years it's not bad to find out where

they are to get the extension. administrator sanchez? >> in regards to that period it's based upon the language that exist at that time and still exist in regard to abandonment of uses. so it's generally 3 years. so they took that 3 years the amount of time that you had to get your permit to construct the project. it's been noted that could change. it doesn't not take that long to process a permit. so we can try to pull up some information about time lines for processing of site permits and maybe that will help the commission about appropriate length of time for the validity of operations. >> thank you. i don't want to beat this thing to death but i

think we've had good conversation and from the public. i'm for the policy. i think it poses some questions. i think it's important for us to take a look at that. my hunch is that some of the projects are smaller and medium size projects which the speaker mentioned i think it's good for the city to balance out against some smaller local projects in case one of those ends up falling out. the idea of adopting, if it is often we hope these are adopted and hope they do take advantage of it. and they will need to calculate

whether it's feasible to do this or reply. icon occur to get more data on it and may be go back beyond 8 years where it was hit with the economic downfall. that might explore the boundaries in short of 8 years. to mr. lunch project, i assume you have the right to file for an extension right now. you don't have to wait for this policy to occur. you have the ability right now. so the project is not dead by that means. so again, i'm supportive and thank you for the comments. >> commissioners that will place you under general comment not to exceed more than 15

minutes. within the subject matter of the commission with respect to the agenda items. it will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member may address. >> is there any general public comment? i have one speaker card linda chapman? i wanted to follow up on issues i brought up before what is referred to as rounded people. i have already referred

to that on the case of larken and 11 california. it was confirmed to me that it was in fact for. i knew it couldn't be v many from the name. i want to talk about cvs, last night at the neighbors meeting people negotiated about take ing away 2 liquor licenses. we are complaining that the liquor license is still operating there. these things don't work. in the meantime i'm hearing from steven cornel and others that the merchants on poke street are suffering which is

rather different from the supermarket. i feel it's a difference in service to the neighborhood and has an impact on some of the small merchants. what happened there? somebody that had idea that we'll approve them and while many of you thought it was a bad idea and many don't want them to have a liquor license. okay, we'll make them buy 2. they don't have to sell their license even though it may have been agreed and abc is not not to make them sell it. if they buy, it was spencer daniels was empty . it was never an approved to be a liquor store. it was a grocery store and now is a church. spencer daniels

was gone. their liquor license was going to be up in 3 months anyway and maybe it was often a mission. there were no benefits from that kind of negotiation. the same thing with regard to 1111 california which i will have to come back and talk another time. hundreds of people in the neighborhood opposed that. people and negotiated and represented themselves as the neighborhood, while the whole neighborhood knew nothing about it. like the most incredible machination to totally disempower everybody there. i will come back and talk about that. this isn't the way planning is supposed to be done. good afternoon. i'm from

the neighborhood. in regards to city planning, we have this transit policy and supposedly that's to encourage or to force in some ways to get people on public transit, do away with cars, to hike and bike. which seems like a very reasonable policy in this time and age and the planning department we have is doing a fantastic job, they are generating a lot of permits. building and building. munis has failed. they have so much maintenance that is not reliable. if i had to take it to work, i might get fired.

fortunately i'm retired. i think in the same vein. i used to work in the hospital. when is census is up, you get more staffing, when it's down, you get less staffing. when these are greater in one part, then you add to that part. if it's less need then you take away funds. i'm not saying that planning and zoning is doing such a great job they shouldn't build anymore but they have to consider that munis is broken so maybe part of the budget should go to fix munis and get that fixed up. that's one thing. another thing is that supervisor wiener says projects are taking too long to build, to get done and that needs to be fixed. well, on the other hand we have this other issue about extending the time. you

can't have it both ways. so, if you want projects to go fast, maybe you ought to encourage them to get moving. sort of like the stock market, when it's low, when the property value is low, you make an investment i'm going to do it when it comes and get the property much cheaper and this thing about funding or lack of money. they are playing a game. this is a stock market game or the the land property game. buy it low, cheap, and wait until it goes up and make a big profit. make a killing. you can't have it both ways. if you go to the bathroom, do it or get off the pot. [ laughter ]

>> good afternoon, my name is robert garcia. i would like to talk about cvs, i would notify a hearing for necessity and convenience even though i was a protestant and i still am. they claim that they do have authorization by the city to stay open after 2:00 in the morning. they say they are not going to do it right now but i know that is their plan. it's going to create the problems that cal a brought up there. that's a residential area. the last 3 months that it was open

it was so bad that they are carrying guns. trader joes has closed off their parking lots and i hope they do not allow cvs to do that. cvs has also applied for license at another location which is a better area. >> general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we'll take a 10 minute break. thank you.