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. planning commission regular hearing for march 14, 2013. we do not allow any out burst

and please turn off any mobile phones. we left off -- planning code section 604, signs shall not be treated as a new sign. >> the item before you is an ordinance proposed by supervisor chu that would amend 604 of the planning code so it would no longer require a new sign. currently it requires a sign permit and to the current codes of the planning codes. if it's not conforming it would have to be renewed. a mere change in copy would no longer be considered a new sign, however change in new copy will still require a permit. stuff is recommending approval with

modifications to the proposed ordinance. while the department does realize how we comply, we also believe it could be interpreted too broadly. that it be changed or would require new change. also add in the exception for a change of copy from one sign type to another for example change an identifying sign to a business sign. these i forwarded to you last week. the

department has received comments. the department is seeking approval with modifications with how we treat non-compliant signs and helps preserve the in nature of the character and integrity of buildings and would remove unnecessary burdens on business owners and accommodate new tenants. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> okay. opening it for public comment. former commissioner rob miguel. trisha, alex

walker. >> commissioners, ron miguel, first i would like to welcome to the grandparents club. you will enjoy it as i have for the last 34 years and you will be a proud member. as to the item before you; i like it. i understand the changes as to size, structure and lighting. i was a retail merchant in the neighborhood commercial area of san francisco, for over 25 years, and involved with the association for over 40 years. i have seen everything from the anglo california national bank to go out. i have seen changes in funeral parlors where many have gone out of business and merged with others and many

changes to names. my personal example, my family had a flower shop since 1989 and i sold it to someone with another name, all of her business cards, all of her labels says flowers. hers is difference. that sign was made in the 40s and not conforming. she can't change that sign without totally taking it down which is expensive and putting up a total new one plus it has the 40s design on it. it's a little outdated now. she can't even

change it now. it's a practical situation in many instances. i can go to any neighborhood in commercial district in san francisco and show you instance after instance and in fact you will find a sign permitted by the department with one name and lettering on an you auning with a newer name . i urge you to go with this one. >> thank you, my name is myelo, i'm president -- i'm concurrent with this form because it's going to create an entitlement rather than a process for

exception. we are looking at the impact that these signs will have -- the unmitigated permission for all the signs that are currently out there. we believe that the occasion for this may have come from the traders joe's at california street. and the reason for the chase here, this is an example of how national chains are coming in and have signs way out of control. we at san francisco beautiful are hearing a lot of complaints about chase in particular. the existing statute allows the neighborhood a real back branding that is diminished the character and consistency of the neighborhood or the changes in the better street plans that are

contemplated for those better neighborhoods. this sign, i don't know why we need to create a blanket permission on the planning department and planning commission would advocate that ability to scrutinize each of these signs. downtown san francisco, city bank has been there for a long time. this sign is very different and very loud from the feeling you have along california street and the financial district. why would we want to give up the ability to scrutinize that in a permitting process. here is another example. what used to be holiday in in chinatown, i took a picture of it at night. it's a beautiful pedestrian bridge. it has a lot of detail on it. it's been botched by that hilton sign. again, as the rules are now contemplated

would grandfather that sign. in other words we need to opportunity to reel in branding that is at odds with the character of our neighborhoods. i would like to also point out that san francisco beautiful helped pass prop g. we had voter approval but no enforcement on it until we came here and pounded the desk and got enforcement on it and then we got some quantification. only 30 percent are operating legally. what you have in the executive summary is a little breezy and non-quantitative. >> your time is up. >> thank you. without any quantitative data we are about ready to see everything as is.

good afternoon, commissioners, i'm kristin craven executive director for san francisco beautiful. i think we are in all favor in stream lining procedures and our concern is simply with the process. i don't believe we are in the business of creating code reforms that gut our planning code. this is our fear. we would like for there to be a review process for exceptions to the rule that they should be treated as exceptions in the case of delicate daisy's. that sounds like an important story that you should hear and review but that we shouldn't give entitlements to national corporations and other examples that myeloshowed. our concern

is really about the process. we don't think you should give your right to review away in favor of expediency. thank you for your time this afternoon and look forward to hearing on how you weigh in on this. >> good afternoon, alex walker. i want to say a few words today on behalf of tom dual vich who is also chair board who could not be here today. i want to draw a few things out from the letter he sent this morning to members of the commission and staff. i want to thank supervisor chu's office for having a meeting with san francisco beautiful, unfortunately,