and asked for a brief hearing. the second ordinance to delete the provision for the alcohol excelsor. i would like to remind you on april 18 you will hear a related ordinance that will create the outer mission ncd that will take the place of this alcohol restricted use. you will hear more about that later this month the last item on the committee was the polk street and alcohol ordinance. the planning commission recommended approval on march 14. the revised incorporated several but not all of your recommendations. you recommended primarily removing the tobacco paraphernalia from

polk street, this recommendation was not incorporated. when it comes to alcohol control this commission sought to modify several of the controls primarily getting rid of the ban for a new bar and liquor store will take place in this ordinance. instead of the ban you wanted to prohibit bars and liquor stores there within a certain existence of a bar and liquor stores and wanted to allow others by cu and others with license obtain a c u before this commission. they were not incorporated and you still had other recommendations. you recommended that restaurants with 47 liquor license obtain liquor license and they continue serving food until

they are closed. that was modified into the ordinance and also suggested the ban for liquor establishments be changed so they would not be considered abandoned unless they were not used for 3 or more years. it was lengthened to one year and you added a sunset provision to this lower polk alcohol use district and the amended legislation includes a 5 year sunset. that conincludes the land use committee hearing. on tuesday, at the full board they passed on first reading the market historic district sponsored by kim, breed and campos and recommended approval last fall. there were three ordinances on final reading this week the landmark designation for the dolger building and update included affordable housing and

last was sacramento amendment. that concludes my report. there are no new ordinances this week. >> commissioner borden? >> i thought we had recommended a 12 p.m. closing time and if they stayed open late they serve food. >> you recommended removing the requirement. i'm sorry if i miss spoke. that recommendation was not incorporated. they will continue to need to be closed by midnight. your other one, no, i'm sorry. strike that. okay. so both those recommendations were incorporated. you no longer have to close at midnight and they must serve food until they close until whatever time that might be.

>> that was the big issue if they were a restaurant to serve food. just making sure. >> any other questions? okay. thank you for that report. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department staff, i'm to share with you a short summary of the historic preservation hearing. after discussion of roles of officers and rules and regulation, the commission elected carl haz as president and andrew wolf as vice-president. that was unanimously approved. at that point hauz pointed commissioner highlander and pearlman to the architectural review committee and they will have their first committee meeting on april 17th. the commission then

continued it's appointment of member to the historic preservation fund committee pending city attorney advice based on they were required to appoint a commissioner to that committee or -- a point any member of the public. the commission then approved a certificate of appropriateness for maintenance in washington square park. that was approved unanimously with several commissioners arguing the compatibility of the new design of the structure. a number of members of the public also came out in support of the new structure. the commission then provided a positive recommendation for 572, 7th street to use 8039 section of the planning code which allows for flexibility and zoning uses

for california register, national register, eligible buildings and city landmarks and they are listed on the california register and it has provided a preservation and maintenance plan for the building over the next 25 years. the commission provided advice to the zoning administrator who will exercise the final decision on whether or not to allow office in a previously pdr zoned building. finally the commission enthusiastically endorsed and adopted the sunset building blders context statement for primarily just the sunset neighborhoods on the west side of the city. it also allows provides a framework for buildings constructed between

1928 and 1950 in the sunset neighborhood and a copy that have statement has been forwarded to all of you for your information as well. there is a survey associated with the context statement and that survey are the survey findings will be before the hpc sometime this summer. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. >> wasn't mission street on the agenda? >> yes. 76 mission street, was on the agenda, they continued that item because of the appeal to its may 15th agenda. >> thank you. the board of appeals did not meet last night nor last week but they will be back in action next week. >> okay. thank you, there is nothing further commissioners, item 13. planning on project implementation.

commissioners good afternoon, dan sideers with the department. i'm going to be brief as much as possible. there are three items we would like to run through quickly. firstly a refresher about what we talked about last week and updates to the policy as reflected in your packets and lastly our responses to finding from questions that you had raised at your march hearing. if we can have the overhead, please. >> so commissioners again we are recommending that you take action on two separate policies. the first being a clarifying update to standard commissioner approval language. this would affirm current department practice for everyone involved in the process and the second policy is one time opt in stimulus program for the project. on the first policy as you know right now standard approval language

and this is the language included in your typical approval motions. is internally contradictory. it not clear on how we handle permits that are sought after project performance period has lapsed to implement that project. our process has been been to adopt a conservative stance and require these permits come back to you to be reauthorized by you at a public hearing. what is suggested on your screen now is to get rid of that ambiguity and articulate that practice of hearing to occur. again this is not a change in policy, it is not a change in practice. it is only a clarification and in crease in certainty. the second policy is the stimulus policy which impacts the recessions

and amounts of quality an approved by you along with a near certainty that you see from time to time. in a nutshell this policy would allow a policy issuance after a 3 year performance period has run. very importantly this is not an open-ended policy, it's not an open-ended program, we will be sending a 60 day program for project enrollment. in the program is only exist ing in that window and once enrolled the project would have 18 months to obtain the permits. the policy would not apply to project with clear commission mandated or code mandated time frames. and just one quick side to remind you on the numbers that under pineal of this, in the last 8 years

you approved a number of projects that are not subject to specific time frames. more than a quarter of those projects, about 50 individual projects have exceeded their performance period and in order to move forward would have to come back to you for reauthorization at a new public hearing. in the last five years we have seen 35 request for extensions with only one disapproval and that was a very unusual project with ninety percent certainty with these extension hearings. so we think as a staff there is reason to investigate the question, utility of conducting those hearings. last refresher slide on your screen, the law of today, we talked a good deal about this on your march 14th hearing, this is a long standing policy regardless of everything else, the commission are balanced by the current law

that you either prove a conditional use politics -- application or we continue a building permit. next is to talk about what's changed. there is three items. historically almost all of your approvals have contained a provision that stop the clock when there is an extraordinary delay caused by a public agency. this dropped out of your earlier policy and this is with long and standing practice. it's not a policy change. secondly in your clarification policy, as mentioned in your last hearing we have made a clerical fix to move project out of it's performance period is the right practice and is what you

intend. the last item here is that we have amended at your direction, the stimulus policy to apply to projects that have already received and extension from the commission to the extent possible. the implementation of this and the real world is going to depend on the exact language used in each approval document. what this change does is it essentially allows for enhanced participation for these projects that play by the rules whenever we legally can. okay. the final batch of slides we are going to talk about the 5 top issues that came up in your march 14th hearing, there are some additional hearings relevant but as critical as these and they were identified in your packet. what are the implication of applying the stimulus policy to ten years rather than eight years. there

is about 15 projects. we increase the total potential enrollment to 65 projects. and there is from 2600 to 3000 by virtue of catching those additional two years. commissioners we prepared those numbers at your request and because you are interested in the data, at this point we haven't heard from you a clear direction to amend or to not amend the policy. so right now the policy time does remain unchanged at 8 years. second question raised, what project is affected by the policy, where is it located, how big are they. the way to communicate is with a map on your screen. commissioners on your packet should have a much more legible printed version. the yellow dots that you can

see are residential projects, the purple dots are commercial projects. the bigger the do the, the bigger the project. one thing here is dots with a red ring around them are captured only if the policy were to be expanded to a ten year look back rather than an 8 year look back. let's move to the necked -- next question. you asked about automatic revocations. we could not revoke this. a public hearing is required to do so. as for automatic revocation hearings, we can do that, however it involves a notice, a mailed notice and newspaper notice for each project and involves a brief and motion for each project and dedicating a

portion of time at your hearing for comments by everyone for each project. it will impact our ability to new projects down the pipeline. we are suggesting that you don't pursue that particular approach. can the department provide a commission with a list of opted in projects in that 60 day window? the answer is yes. we can do that. just give us direction and we'll be happy to follow your lead. the last question, commissioners, what if a project isn't cover by a stimulus policy or what if it's covered but opted into a policy. the option continues to apply for any project to come back. the only difference here

is that if they fail to participate or aren't eligible to participate in the program, they need to come back at a public commission hearing and individually request that a project be extended. last slide. it is something you do relatively and frequently. this can be modified at any time in --

>> we had 15 employees. sorry about that. >> i just want to reiterate. he's basically saying that he's affected by the ten year decision. his project can start immediately if approved. thank you very much. >> do you care to state your name for the record? >> my name is henry lamb. >> is there any additional public comment? okay. public comment closed.

>> i have a couple questions for mr. cider, thank you for doing this. it's very well done. couple of things law of the day questions. we talked about law of the day about a project that took advantage of the stimulus, but one would assume that the law of the day also applies to a situation where a project has gone through a series of extensions. >> thank you for asking that. it goes to a very important point which is the law of the day applies universally, not just within this particular policy. we think that it's made more relevant because of this policy because we would potentially be acting on projects approved in the years past where it was nearly as today. whether a project is

approved, 10 or 8 years under the policy, 5 years ago or whether it was approved at the last commission hearing. when a building permit comes in. that permit must bereaved -- be -- reviewed at the time. >> with the exception of special situations. >> the law of the day in some instances includes a grandfathering provision. >> my second question is if the projects sponsor takes advantage of the opt in provision they have 18 months in which to pull their permits. is there any provision between the time the permits are pulled and when they actually begin construction or do we have that anything in our current policies to address that issue?

>> there is nothing in the policy that's up for consideration today that would require commencement of construction within a certain period of time following issuance of the permit. conditions of approval, both today and as proposed to be clarified includes a provision that allows projects that failed to move forward and executed at issuance and brought back to you for revocation after three years. our experience generally is if you go through having the document issued, would you proceed with the project. >> are there any instances where they full permit and not expeditiously move forward and can they be revoked. >> on the building permits they have a validity period to begin

construction otherwise the permit will expire. i believe it's tied to the cost of construction on the permit. >> that's more of a dbi issue. the third thing this is a comment and question, the 60 day period of time to take advantage of the opt in after the passage of this i presumably the board of supervisors is on the way, it's just us, is that too short a period. i'm just asking your opinion on whether it should be ninety days. i guess if they are interested they will pay attention and take advantage of it. >> our interest is this is targeted for those impacted by the economic situation over the past few years. if projects want to move forward, it's great. but let's do it now. let's not delay any further. that is your policy and you

have a great deal of flexibility. >> thank you, mr. cider. i always have a comment and that's on the period of time, 10 years. i was reflecting on the idea that we are trying to address the recession speaking in the recession in the latter probably 2007-2009 period of time maybe a little bit later than that at 8-10. whatever it was. there also was a fairly significant down turn that occurred in the first part of the century after some of these projects became more intense in 03 and '04. so it could quite possibly happen that a project kind of started to get ready to go and the rebound was not that long of a rebound and that's one reason i would speak for

the ten year period. the other reason is we can capture a larger number of projects, another 15 projects of a residential and additional 400 units which i think makes sense which is a policy we feel is different 10 years and 6 years is really not that significant. i think we build a lot of protections in here to make sure that those who do take advantage of it move expeditiously to begin the projects. so that would be my general feeling, but i think the rest of what you are suggesting is very good. >> commissioner borden? >> thank you for the detail and the delineation of 10 versus 8. i have a question about your chart because i have 178 towns end. i know that project was

completed. it's called the street address, the clarence place but it's 178 towns end. it's on the chart. that's my only comment. do you think this might have captured some projects that didn't get their final statement of occupancy. >> you are highlighting an issue that is relevant. it's not perfect. one thing you are talking about is you will also see 690 stan yon on this list. a number of years ago you approved this as a mixed use project. authorizations were ultimately valid but the project that went ahead was a different project. while that project still appears on here is one that would be made effective again. we can assume that that won't happen owing

to a subsequent project. >> i guess looking at this list in general i don't have a problem. if a 60-day window where people are ready to move forward and the fact that they have to get their permits in 18 months. i don't think every project will take advantage of this and if it gets people going, i like it because it's a tight 60-day and a year-and-a-half timeframe and the concern that people had in the past are delayed because i don't think we are going to see a massive boom necessarily of construction happening at the same time. looking at the 8 versus 10, i do notice that 10 out of 15 projects are commercial and i think people tend to have more issues with the residential. i think you

can capture more units and allow those projects if they are in that place where they are ready, it's fine. there was the recession of 2001 until 2003 and we didn't have the next recession and the financing has changed. so i'm actually fine with extending it to 10 years. i don't think there is a major impact in that regard and i appreciate again, the level of work that you have done to try to tease out the numbers. sounds like the numbers are a lot less rather than more if this list is inclusive. if you are telling us there is not a bigger list. i think we have assurances that it's a lot less likely. >> i also want to thank staff for their work on this. as it

moves forward it's more detail oriented and more clear. for me, i am interested in seeing more housing being -- i can't think of a word other than stimulated to be built. i think we want to see more housing built. the existing process does work, where sponsors come to look for entitlement works. i'm supportive of this legislation, more supportive of the 8 year timeframe. i do think it should be tied to the recession. that probably ties that for people that couldn't ge financing. the second path is still a very valid one and i think i want to reiterate that it's important that the department stands behind that. i do have the question, sort of about laws of the day. so, law

of the day always applies across the board and the projects need to pay the fees of the law of the day, correct? so i don't know if you have this answered today, can you tell me what happens to these when they come into the department. i'm assuming it's the same process for all fees and others maybe more familiar when they are dealing with this. >> my sense is the code is relatively clear on what point in the project implementation fees are due. typically they are either due at permit issuance or for certificate of occupancy but what that particular specified time place is, it appears in the code and applies to projects, again across the board as to the law of the day or the lack of this policy. >> so there would be no change in terms of how these are