is proposed here. >> okay. i may follow-up with you to understand the fee structure generally, not particular to this policy. >> commissioners? >> yes, mr. cider, just to understand something here. under the existing policy, once we issue let's say the approval in 3 years, it lapses and it effectively doesn't exactly expire but whatever the term we are supposed to be using. so then at that point they are supposed to come back and ask for an extension which we have routinely granted in your point of statistics. but i can't remember if after 3 years, this is another number of years that they don't exercise the extension. is there a time frame within which they can't come back and ask for an extension or is it always sort

of out there in a sense? >> i think the answer is more so the latter scenario. when a project comes to you to seek what we call an extension or renewal, it's actually seeking a new conditional use authorization. simply to reprove if you will the previous project. so as long as you had not disapproved that project, which obviously isn't in the situation here, there is no limit as to when a project can come back again. and then another question in terms of -- so the implication of that is that they can't go ahead and apply for a building permit. that's the real trigger that we have? >> essentially correct, when someone seeks to i mplement the project and we look at if it's

not in conformity to get it within three years and we get it back to you as a matter of project. >> that would still be open to any project if we implement the stimulus policy. >> correct. whether it's 4 years or 40. >> when do we start counting 8 years in terms of the look back. is it when we adopt the policy or when we include the original application. when do you start looking at the 8 or 10 years. >> the way the resolution is drafted right now it starts the day of the adoption. that could be changed. >> last question, if a project has been out there for let's say 8 or 10 years, i don't know if it matters that much and comes back through this process, what kind of sequel implications are there? i'm

thinking of situations where if a project is that old, it maybe that especially south of market, for example, conditions have changed. there are probably tremendous amount of traffic transportation changes as well as land use and other changes. how does the staff then through environmental i assume they would take a look at it, are there standards that determine whether a new sequel of review is required or not? >> commissioners, great question. sequel is part of the law of the day and as part of our review of a project against the law of the day, our staff would make sure it continues to comply with sequel. which means we take the project to our environmental experts and have it read at that time. >> a stimulus is requested under policy it would be

reviewed staff wise and standards applied that says there have been so many changes that perhaps we should take a look at like a focus transportation study. >> like necessity project -- any project we would have to find it complies with the seek sequel. >> if that new project came in, their sequel document incorporates this project if it's approved. if somebody is applying for a project in a neighborhood where we have already approved a project even though it's not built, doesn't sequel include that approval? it's a cumulative. most would be included in that project? >> yes. >> under the stimulus, it's supportive, even though given the recession we faced and how hard these projects were hit, i

think it's a smart response to that. i'm fully supportive of the stimulus. my question is going forward on the policy if we are clarifying it but i'm still confused. so going forward we still have this 3 year window or, you are allowed to act in 3 years but what happens after 3 years. is it still the same action. you either have an extension or we take an action to disapprove it? >> should you adopt the clarification policy it would more articulate what you have been doing for years in the past which is as soon as you are 3 year performance period runs, any building permit to implement the project would be brought back to you for reauthorization. the existing language in your typical conditions of approval is contradictory. it implies at

the same time that you have to come back for reauthorization but that you don't. but after a three year, it doesn't. >> you could come back to seek an extension and we could give it to you. >> correct, on a staff level we wouldn't be able to prove it after 5 years. >> could you do it after it says 3 years? >> no. there is no change in practice or policy. just to be blunt because we are often confronted with legal arguments. we think this is a good change. >> okay. i think it would be great to have even a clearer policy. it's 5 years, 3 years is too short. then you have to come back and it's automatically terminated. i

guess there might be some legal issue with that. can a project be legally terminate within the five years without coming back that a policy be terminated after 5 years. >> deputy city attorney. there is case los angeles you that requires a due process hearing before a cu is revoked n certain circumstances where the commission makes findings, that for particular reasons a c u is granted for a season -- certain amount of the time that you are not aware, then you can make a time limited cu originally because you want to evaluate noise impact. >> all right. i think it's more complicated. but i would like to see some movement in that

direction. it would obviously take a lot more public input. it has more teeth in it. i appreciate the clarification if our current policy. i would like to see where your permit does expire and there is not this ambiguity of 4 years that we have after this is adopted. >> just to be sure, we think ambiguity will be gone. it's that desire to have the authorization terminate automatically after a period of time. >> right. >> thank you. >> it doesn't seem like it. >> the case law is that you have to take an affirmative action. we can't do it automatically. >> it would be nice to have it come back to you automatically. i know it's an administrative issue to come back after 5 x years. >> we can certainly do that. we

can bring projects to you after a certain time. you did that last year. i think dan brought the projects to you and you revoked one of those because it had been a long standing project. >> okay. >> commissioner moore? >> this is excellent. this is a very difficult thing to have a clear board in front of -- you because there are so many variables. i have one request for clarification. pending plan for neighborhood which are currently pending for approval would they be affecting the full set of projects which are on your list here? >> the answer is yes. so if the i believe it was the fillmore

and if those would be law in 60 days and the permit came in should the stimulus policy be adopted, to implement the project more than days old, those would apply. they would become law of the day. >> thank you for clarifying that. there are projects that fall in the category of 10 years old and older which means that if a plan or several amendments to certain plans couldn't happen. >> correct. >> i would be really in order to stick with what we are trying to do to have a stimulus package agree with commissioner wu with your timeframe is more appropriate and that would

still leave us with 54 projects out of the 65 because they are 11 projects which trail beyond the 2003 line. i counted this very quickly. i might be off by one or two digits. i believe there is strong support for housing in the overall list of projects, but i think this would be a one time policy decision and does not could not be indefinitely expanded. i am interested in picking up on other commissioners comments to discuss as to whether or not 3 or 5 years are the appropriate time for project approval. i think that is a difficult discussion to have in a time when there is so much real estate activity that we do want to avoid to stimulating

speculation is what i'm looking for. i want to use that very carefully but since this is the only real estate market in the country where it's hot that we are proposing huge buildings and many changes that we are not in the long run creating empty holes within the overall city fabric. so i am in support of aspects and wait until somebody makes a motion. >> thank you. >> mr. cider, terms, i'm fine with the 60 days, but what sort of a notification process are we going to notify the projects or are they going to have to find out about it through general media? >> the resolution calls for us to issue a mailed notice to the project sponsor of record in addition to the owner property

on which the property would be located. >> that's fine with me. i'm fine with the 60 with other than letting them know just having to hear about this. i'm going to make a motion and i'm going to make the motion for 10 years, but another situation that transpired during the middle part of the first decade of the 20th century having sat on the planning commission at the time. the atmosphere was not as receptive as it is today. there were a lot of approved projects but a lot has transpired with the continued opposition and appeals and i know we do have a provision in here that the clock stops if there is an appeal process and that's a good one but i think another case made was the obstacles that existed absent. the plans we now have easter

neighborhood, there seems to be more of an acceptance of these plans but in those days the battles were pitched over every project. i'm going to make a motion to approve as mentioned by staff with the period extending back to one would assume 4/4/2013 if i'm drafting it correctly. >> commissioner? >> yes. unless i missed it somewhere. the stimulus policy gets adopted today which i assume it will be adopted today. is there an expiration date on it? did i miss something or does this continue to go on? >> it would have a 60-day

window. yes. >> so once the notices go out then a response is back and this is a one time deal. >> that's correct. it's a one shot deal. if you miss the 60 days then you have to go through the process. >> i would make a motion to adopt the policy and changes as is. >> i did make a motion. i didn't hear a second yet but i had a motion already. >> there was a motion on the floor. >> the ten year period. >> right. commissioner? >> i'm somewhat indifferent to the 8-10 years. but given the scope of the recession and that you have to act, i will give it a second to 10 years. >> on the motion to extend the

period to ten year period adopting both resolution? commissioner, so moved, commissioners that motion passes 4-3. >> commissioners that will place you under general comment not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. within the subject matter jurisdiction accept agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting . i do have one speaker card. >> general public comment. john

aber link. mr. secretary if you can hand this. >> thank you. i'm president of the taco group and the neighborhood consortium. your project doesn't give us a chance to respond to the hearing to have staff respond to our comment. i'm here today to respond to what director ram said is for the cumulative impact assessment which we urgently need that the central corridor, would be a venue. that is completely unacceptable as a process. the corridor speaker ir will not take the

complete time. what gets widened and what crosswalks go and needed change to solve the problem. that's not going to work. the process that would do the job is the expansion eir, the top contributor to the entire district. the expansion eir is on roughly the same schedule but focused on the geographic area in question. and because the city is the developer, the city can propose specific changes to pacific locations, crosswalks, sidewalks, rules and regulations that the city can then build and city can then pay for as mitigation measures.

that is the process that can solve the problem. i want to be very clear. you may know we an appealed. we are going to pursue our full and legal remedies on this issue. that includes the expansion and even potentially the central quarter rezoning. the city needs to sit down with us and work out how we are going to solve the problem. we are not going to wait 2 more years for promises that will take another 3-5 years to implement the real solutions. thank you. >> linda chapman. >> i want to address again the polk alcohol restrictions and sometimes you have when amendments were put forward to have them come back and look at them again for ramifications. i'm concerned about the

direction you took but also the amendments. wilhelm wundt one of the amendments, which adds new restaurants may operate past midnight with the food thing. before that wasn't in the planning code. there was as of right, if there was no conditional use limitation placed on them, they could stay open until 2. you could place conditional use on them that said they will not stay open passed 12 as they did with poorhouse and others. is it possible that this language is going to be interpreted to interfere with your putting an earlier restriction on when you are putting a conditional use with these new businesses. i wonder about that there was a lot of confusion about cvs because you got advice from staff and advice from the deputy city attorney that day that was confusing as to

whether or not if you can put any conditions on it. when you could, you didn't. nobody else can. if they want to stay open until 2 a.m., they can, the police took a strong position to hard liquor until 2 a.m. and therefore abc could do something because of that but nobody could do something about 2 a.m.. and the other thing when you by conditional use can add more bars by an allowing bar to use it's location but the conditions will remain to the old bar. for instance the other one that moved, it left behind it's bar. it's conditional use was still open for at least a year. it was like automatic. there was nothing abc was going to do to stop it or even add anymore conditions unless they were to

their license unless there were a lot of police complaints about that specific thing. i just see like continuing march have more licenses more alcohol licenses and these restaurants closing until 2 a.m.. they stay open as night clubs. abc had a restriction. they decided they were opening until 2 a.m. as a coffee shop but now they are selling beer. they decide they didn't want to stay open to serving food. they don't want to serve food. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> commissioners this will place you under your regular calendar and i believe president yu request both items be heard. in that case we are considering item 5 per case 2072 d 45th request for discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioners, michael smith department planning staff. we took the item off the calendar today to review more items into the action memo you have before you. here is a copy for distribution that has a few additional items. just to clarify what we are expecting of this sponsor on this project. in paragraph under item no. 3 under commission action i have highlighted the language added

and what that language does is it just clarifies that a wet bar won't be installed in the building and as well as all plumbing in the kitchen will be capped and that's how we are treating the particular structure on the property. conversely and the paragraph below. 3 b for clarification, i have struck the word or just to clarify that the sponsor can make alterations to the building such as replace windows if need be or repair the structure. and he was concerned about that particular language. so i struck the or. and those are the only changes and this is the completion of my presentation and if you have any comments i'm here. that is

the action before you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed other. >> i had a question on the back comment with no installation of wet bar and i don't know if there is a bathroom within that structure or not. wouldn't that be permitted? >> there is a bathroom in the structure and it shall remain. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> i have a question. i'm not sure why a wet bar specifically. i have no problem with it. i just want to understand it. i have never seen this provision before. >> it was probably issued 20 years ago. it limits to legal

units. if you have a full bath and wet bar it's not long after that that you can plug in a hot plate and illegally creating a second unit. it's to prevent it from being used as a legal unit. >> that wet bar established a unit. >> there is very clear matrix that we have been using for 20 years that depending on the level of access that you have to the street, in some cases you can have a wet bar inform this case the building is detached from the front structure. >> if it were included in the front structure, then it wouldn't be included. >> depends on the connection to the street. >> for me, it was interesting

to find out. people were obviously more creative than i would realize. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the clarification of the language. i would make a motion to approve. >> on that motion to take, commissioner aye, moore, ; wu, that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places you on item 6 for case no. 20121413 c at 1090 union street. >> thank you, i'm elizabeth planning department staff. the planning before you is to change a store to a limited restaurant within the zoning

district. this business is independently owned and not considered a formally retailed restaurant. the department has not received any opposition to the project. the project is found to be on balance and desirable. the department recommends that you prove the project with conditions. that concludes my presentation. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. good afternoon, my name is gloria. i have been a resident since 1978 and it's always been a quiet residential neighborhood. my concern is that the new use is

not really compatible with that immediate block area which is heavily residential. the prior business that occupied 1096 union street was very low traffic, quiet low key corner grocery. the summary report that i have viewed online says the new proposed limited use restaurant will augment the range of retail offerings, however one block west, we have already 8 restaurants and we have a corner grocery, 3 blocks west is the polk street commercial district which has a myriad of restaurants. i don't object to a