>> is commissioner borden. >> people grew grapes back then but we have pictures when the streets were red from the wine. >> that's amazing. >> a little fun thing. >> commissioners, i do have a report from the zoning administrator from the board of appeals they met last night and heard one case a large proposition for a 6 story dwelling unit. the mitigated desolation was appealed to the planning complexing commission that was upheld and the larger project was approved. the negative desolation was appealed to the board of supervisors and it was upheld at the board of supervisors on

october 21st. the appellants made the same arguments as they did regarding this negative authorization and two were upheld and that was 3 to zero. the board held what was assumed to be the final permit alter presidio to make minor improvements, however, it was withdrawn and the planning commission may find it interesting because the appellants filed a review the day of the hearing. >> good afternoon. commissioners tim frye to share with you the outcome of historic preservation commission hearing they granted a certificate of

appropriateness at delores street landmark number 37 to allow for 3 temporary classrooms to remain on the ground for 10 and a half years until they could expand to they're new location. there is approval by the commission you'll see that item open a future date. the commission unanimously agreed to approve the st. merchandising under article 11. the building in red brick and cast concrete it's a 4 story building by chuck bassett. the building was may be seated in 196311. aside for meeting the classification the building fulfills one the goals of the work program in recognizing

significant modern movement and the final recommendation will be before the board next year. i want to talk about the filling broke cottages it was approved a koouch years ago. as you know the work has stopped. we met with the project sponsor on monday and they're waiting for the outcome pending legal action regarding the project. assault the sponsor are working on some security measures for the property. we're hoping that work can commence shortly but i want you tongs we're working closely with the architect to make sure that the site remains in good standing and we'll keep you

posted on the progress and >> finally, i talked to the greatest board the board had questions or comments regarding the pressures for guarding greatest abatement on the landmark properties. they're trying to find because of victims of the vandalism to report those crimes to the sfpd. we along with the commission reiterated our willingness to work with the board in finding ways to a collaborate more closely and start discussions on p dw and keep you updated. that concludes my remarks >> tim can i add something. >> sure. >> deputy city attorney. just to add on the 1338 we had

an oral automate in front of the court of appeals. the oral you argument went well, and the court of appeals lifted the construction and they haven't given their final decision in the case that's a positive sign >> okay. >> commissioner, if there's nothing that will place you under your general comment portion of the calendar not to choed 15 minutes. at this time the public may address the matter in the jurisdiction. with respect to the items your item will be addressed at that time, it comes up. we have several speeders

>> (calling names). >> could i have the overhead? pull down. >> i'm from the san francisco information clearing house. i've e-mailed each commission a paper and supporting documents. on a critically important question i would hope would prompt a public hearing on the part of the commission. it's promoted by an economic barometer done by the controller that lays out housing starts, new construction and condo costs from 1997 to 2012. in those 63 quarters condo prices flsz in the 44 quarters

and in 41 of those quarters new construction actually increased over the previous quarter. i'm not sure talking about a cause all relationship. are this goes to the point that new construction is not lowering housing costs in san francisco. as this graphic she's between 1960 and 2010 our population increased by 20 thousand we built a lot of new housing projects. how come housing isn't cheap. one of the reasons is new construction is only about 18 percent thought you unit for sale in san francisco in any given year. that's the the existing hours are solid it's exiting hours.

so if we're talking about controls - if we're talking about affordability. roughly between 2008 and 2013 half of the houses came under some kind of price control and around thirty percent is affordable housing and the rest is public housing in section 8 but that constitutes 52 percent of the housing unit in san francisco that are under some sort of price controls we need to have an intelligent discussion of what goes beyond face based assertions. thank you >> thank you.

patricia. i came to talk about demolitions. we need to really rewrite the demolitions dignifies within the code because there are so many loopholes especially with the fact of demolitions. the famous 2727 barker street was supposed to be a remodel they demolished everything but one wall. where this goes into something calvin talked about there's so many illegal evictions and your eliminating third legal units just by the say so of the developer. there should be some causes that

said first of all, if you have demolition that you should have 3 reports that show you have to demolition it. and on the legal units they're saying they have to prove they say they aren't and a perfect case was the greenwich cases the guy handed you a 1917 thing and that said there was enough units you guys voted it down. you got it from the board of appeals it was a legal unit and he got evicted >> this is why the middle class and the younger families are being kicked out of the city

because of behavior like this. the big point out we need to rewrite something on depiction i'll didn't you have some wording and you've got to find a mitigation on the opts that were grand fathering in. people are being thrown out period. they're saying their illegal and they're not what can we do about the middle class and families there being a kicked out right and left because of the loopholes. thank you. >> i'm sorry linda chapman. >> linda chapman speaking first,

as a member of the land use committee. this week at the meeting there was an unanimous vote to repel the larkin. the land use chair made a remark about the fiscal sponsor. a cry went out like a spontaneous cry of disgust because neighborhood associations don't do this and this is the end of our land use process. instead of macro decisions on sequa it's based on who put out their hand and accepted money and said it's for community benefit, you know. actually a representative from the mta very eloquently said

after that, the unanimous vote was taken to oppose the vote. now i want to say that is rather disappointing and there's a reason for that. when you decide that you're going to pay attention to some little group rather than the community at large you crush the public process. in that district of chinese project owners the wonsz ones who are reached are reached by the 3 china's properties that are involved in that. and after the decision, you know, one can't even be contacted who was the one who

was talking to her neighborhood. in the case of 11 latino heritage there were 9 members of the knob hill association that knew nothing never heard about it and weren't consulted to accept 2 and a half million dollars to settle a lawsuit. ; right? those people had i'm told the largest number of conditional use signatures that have ever been mount and completely wiped out by the kind of dealing. you're not going to be knowing when air utilized to by the methodist church but surely you know what the sequa guidelines are or at least our supposed to know or the planning code. why don't they just say noticing

no as discussed in the meeting? >> is there any additional public general comment? >> hello i just put my card in. i'm betty trainer and i'm speaking to the project that you were - you just heard at 1601 larkin. we've been involved in the hearing of this for over a year and spoken to other hearings in support of the alternative project mainly because that project had the possibility of senior housing at that site. linda chapman and that other have been working with a nonprofit developer who was interested in doing the project

and some folks were not able to be here. we don't have to tell you in the papers everyday is headlines about the need for affordable housing for seniors and protecting people and here we had a possibility and it was turned adopt and the project is going to be another high-end project. we are in support of the alternative project and we will assist people in trying to get that moving forward if at all possible >> any additional general public comment? okay general public comment it closed >> commissioners that places you under our regular calendar. case no. 2013 and 1095 market

street request for the conditions approval for the previous approved conditional use >> good afternoon. before you is a request for the amendment for a previous approved authorization in order to especially extend the performance period for 3 years. it was approved and would convert the building from office to a 94 room hotel with an associated 2 thousand 50 square feet restaurants use and night i time entertainment use and two rooftop terraces. the exterior rehabilitation of this significant building in a manner consistent with the secretary standards of rehabilitation was reviewed and approved by the commission on

december 6, 2010. it would have the reconstruction of the origin plan. no modifications are planned. since project packet were submitted staff has received no public examine that were staff recommendations that the planning commission approve the amendment to the origin use to extend the performance period with conditions as outlined in the draft motion. that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them >> project sponsor, please. >> good evening planning commission i'm jim with gibson dunn and mrernl. we're here to respectfully with request that the commission

extend the use authorization. our client obtained approval in 2010. your client has done everything that the city could hope for in responsible rehabilitation of the building. since that time, you know, in 2010, the economy was not in the best shape there was trouble getting financing for the building and that situation has alleviated itself. and there was litigation unfortunate litigation between the project sponsor and the origin architect of the project. the architect ended up sharing

the plans with a competitor so there was a yearlong thing that derailed the project. our client is ready to move forward. we think this is fair. it's a commonly granted favor by the planning commission for the 3 year extension looking at the planning commission website there's several projects on king street that was approved in 2005 and 2008 it was expended to 2013 and 2013 it turned into 2014. there's other projects and the project at the = allows street was approved in 2001 and it's been extended.

it's a fair request for our client for the local family and the developer and they need more time to get this together >> open this up for public comment i see that the supervisors office is here and afford that opportunity first. >> good afternoon. i'm with the supervisor kim's office. the location of this project 1095 market street is a critical intersection and the supervisors is concerned this project has been vacant since the last tenant in 2011 and 2012. it was a place there were formerly nonprofit organizations and the supervisor at this point is very he concerned about the

displace of employment of nonprofit organizations particularly on that corridor. the faculties left vacant is a concern for the supervisor. we the supervisor would have liked to see something like that a one-year extension but after speaking with the project sponsor and understanding there's a process they need to go under to pursue the project they have we would be supportive of a 3 year continuous but want to see some specific benchmarks and hope you'll consider those benchmarks. we said that the project sponsor is in the process of having a site permit application within

the next 3 months and we would like to see the site permit approved in the next year and then construction permits building permits within the next if years so we have some measurable benchmarks within the 3 year extension period. i wanted to express that and to let the commissioners and the public know about the supervisors concern that given it's prominent position on market street >> thank you very much. calling ed >> ed retired senior citizen. i'm in support of the development in san francisco but

3 years a a long time for the venture to get it together. the grant building has been vacant and it has a long history. up into that our current mayor who used to be the executive director of the human rights section on the fifth floor he said ed that's a great view of city hall but you know what? times change. the mid-market, you know, for nonprofits is at crisis. there's a number of nonprofit community servicing nonprofit. i'm in 0 the board of legal assistance for the elderly. there's a eviction process going on in san francisco. also the family services they're

running in the next year and a half there's they're rents are going to be doubled. from the last two years there's been 0 over $20 billion that have changed handed and the city tax is setting in the public fund okay. that's about $244.8 million that's been transferred back to the general if you happened. other proposals should be looked at. and i'm working with the coalition of nonprofits they're trying to put together something so community serving nonprofits are not lost in the mid-market area. we serve elderly and the disabled. we take one bus and we're there

are. we're to lose 7, 8, 99 market because the owner want to go high tech. now great for the hotel industry, you know, but that's not the place where it ought to happen. anyway, i'm saying let's not grant the extension we want to put together a proposal and the nonprofits that pay the rent to private sources because that represent because it's funded by public services can go back to the city. it's a win-win. the building that survived the earthquake and 89 earthquake it should continue for nonprofit use. thank you >> any public comment on this

item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i share the people's concerns for extending this for 3 years. the project sponsor did a good job submitting the plans. what's the fall back position should the sponsor not been able to pull it together in 3 years what happens then. it's a older building being vacated for a number of years it's experiencing deration. my question is if this doesn't happen what then? >> well, i'll be curious in the project sponsor wants to speak a

little bit about plan a and b and about the conversation of benchmarks and how you can help assure you'll cope this department posted. >> sure jim. first of all, i want to clarify it was the litigation for this project i want it clear on the record but i know that the faster way to get the building into operation and that's to extend the entitlements. i think we all know the sequa process in the city is a lengthy. and the fact that this building as vacant it will take a few years to get this on line. i think you're looking at the approvals where the work has

been done with entitlements and our client has to submit things. we have a great conversation and want to work with the supervisor over the next few years. i suggest we file the site permit in the next 12 months and if that doesn't happen the entitlements will lapse. the entitlement be approved in the next year and given the backlog with the city is unrealistic. the city is, you know, justifiab justifiablely overwhelmed. and i hope that satisfies the concerns >> commissioner hillis. >> so while you're still up there. i think the use of a hotel is a

great building we want to see it done. i had a chance to meet with the project sponsor years ago. and you were there before twitter and the use of the hotel. the staff report was written during the recession when others were trying to speed things up it's a key block. so i think we can condition the permit for a side permit and the other thing was the construction applying for a construction permit in 2 years can we condition that >> yes. that's the building permit that with would trigger the process for the construction and the addendum was