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 collected under the policy that 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