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 filed. >> right you could sit on it.

>> sure. and i suppose your suggesting if the site permit was not approved in 2 years they'd lost the entitlement >> yes. >> i think you're correct it would be applying for the site permit because we can't get the control with our schedule. the terminal you might put in for the second phase is we have a construction permit which is a term that's identified in the code. i suggest that 2 years - that a year is generally enough time to approve a site permit. and that you could add if you wanted to put the second

contingency on it is a it's for the approval >> i think there's options. it's a realistic expectation and i want to see the project happen >> absolutely it's a great project. anyone else's who's worked with the historic building it's complicated. so we'll appreciate your consideration >> thank you. commissioner antonini >> yeah. i think that was a wonderful project and most other you cities have been renovating their historic buildings and helped to make it more attractive because those were classic buildings when they were

built. i would like to see this approved. one suggestion is what mr. abrams brought up they'd have to file the site permit within a year not necessarily approved it's out of their control depending on how long it would take and the second piece of the pulse they'll pull the construction permit within the year of a site permit. again, it may you turnout there's a lag between the time they file for the permit and when it's granted and it brings the two things into too much proximity. mr. abrams can you ask if that sounds reasonable to you >> i think it's reasonable only the point of classification is the approval of the first

application. >> application only. >> but what i'm saying is within one year you put your application in for the site permit and we don't know how long that will take. the clock for the next year when you pull your construction permits would begin when the granting of the site permit occurs. >> yeah, that - >> it could be two or 2 1/2 years depends how quickly that occurs. that's my motion we have the 3 year extension >> can we - >> i don't hear a second

because my - we need for clarity commissioner wu. >> i understand that would be to apply for the site permit and apply for the construction site permit within 2 years. >> okay. >> so i move to approve on extension with the benchmark with the developer applies for the permit within one year and the second permit within if years. >> second. >> second. >> commissioners if there's no further destruction there's a motion and second, that the site permit be applied for one year and the construction permit on two years. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis. is commissioner moore.

commissioner wu. and president fong. that passes. item this or that for case 134 t amendments to the planning code and amending section 204 to allow cottage food operation at a use. >> good afternoon. i'm with the depth staff. the item is an ordinance sponsored by supervisor chiu to allow the food to increase it from one quarter to 1/3rd of the unit. and the controls for the zoning district. the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to bring it into state law. it passed the cottage food act when regulates the home kitchens

for food for sale. it became mandated and says a city can't prohibit food operations. it gave him the city 3 options. including the classifying the cf those with reasonable standards and to review the permits. the department believes this the best course of action is protects the quality of life in residential neighborhood it makes this a use that elements the use for permits, however, the cottage operations are required to get a permit from the health department.

there has been some concern about the $133 permit foe. when the dwp issues the permit for food operation their signing off on the use for that location. it should be sent to the board for review to us. the referral allows the planning department to make sure it's within a legal dwelling unit. it also allows us to cope the reported that the lease it legally permitted. the pressure protects the public. we feel this is practical for san francisco and it doesn't require a public hearing or notification that adds money to the applicant.

there is one small update that's in our case report that concludes my presentation. and we're both here from commissioner chiu's office if you have any questions >> any public comment on this item? okay seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> i have a few questions. in our case report it goes so what great detail about the fact we have a problem with obesity in our country. we don't have any sort of guarantee that the type of food will be healthy food >> you're right we don't. that was a direct quote from the states digestion for passing the

law >> okay. well, i know that's part of the state law but i think we're presuming we're going to get a better quality of food. the other thing right now if i understand it credible certain districts it's allowed to occur in the c m and p d record is but not commercial. if we're allowing up to i think it's a third of the square footage to be used in this production didn't that tend to cut down on the housing. we had this robust discussion about housing needs. i'm not sure we are going to have a huge you number of those things occurring but if it's used to food production can't be

used for housing bedrooms would be eliminated. that's one thing that's a health department oversight but it's in residential neighborhoods and, you know, if it's not being done in the right manner than i think there could be some problems with rod dents and other things that would be attributed to food operation. so what kind of assurances do we have for this? >> yeah. there are a couple of statements. there are two tiers ever food tier a and b that you are tier a is a lessor intensity and their inspected by the health department and pay a fee. tier b is more intensive they

get inspected yearly. i believe that none of this food can be refrigerated so it doesn't have to be kept in a certain temperature. >> so what's the dividing line between the two is the quantity. >> there's a $130 fee for one time to review the application. >> is there my kind of tax on the product being produced. >> i'm sure there is still sales tax. >> local tax. >> safkdz. okay. thank you that answers

some of my questions >> commissioner borden. >> i thank you. i know the challenges of some of these. the businesses have and i think it's great we are madam clerk, our code and trying to be less riefk for the code around the space. i appreciate your clarifying this the fees i mean, that's not part of this legislation it's not for us to decide on but it seems like a modest fee. and putting those into a law is not ashy and smart but i move to approve >> second. >> on that motion to adapt a

recommendation for approval. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner moore. commissioner wu and president fong. and that places you on case 13 fourteen amendments to the any of us code to provide residents for the affordable housing programs. >> good evening president fong and members of the board. the ordinance proposed by breeding, cameron's and mar will have a new standard for residents placed under the eviction standard. it's approved with conditions. i'll cabin my presentation by explaining the lottery and

preference program and how that will be amended with the draft ordinance and i'll finish with the departments 3 recommend modification. a gentleman from supervisor chiu off or when they arrives 53 she can speak. san francisco affordable housing programs are defined in the planning code. an affordable housing are for lotteries. they occur for new developments and as unit become available for resale or rental as tenants leave. currently there is one existing preference program for occupying units. the first currently tenant;

right who are displaced in the hunter point through the city's redevelopment programs have lotteries for affordability. those folks are given certifies of preference and when people are interested in occupying the units there's a lottery held for the certify holder. after unit have been looked a second lottery is conducted for the remaining units. in the exiting program for the preference holder is small it is just over 3 thousand lottery planters for the new building 17 applicant were hordes. after the preference for the co p holders the new preference is for applicants eligible for the

housing who were evicted pr tenants must live in the unit for 5 years. the new developments for the evicted tenants would last for 6 years and unit for resale or rental the preference would be extended for 3 years. as proposed the preference would be plausible to 20 percent of new development and for all unit that are available for resale or rerental. the department supports the ordinance and supports the efforts to help tenant who are displays ease supportive of the ordinance with 3 recommended modifications. our first recommended modification is to reduce the eligible period in new developments from 6 to 3 years.

as prototype the draft ordinance talks about 3 pertdz one for redevelopments and their occupancy stage and the second for resale unit. new development represents the overwhelming majority of the unit in the inclusionary programs. as compared to 39 units that have become available for rerental. we recommended limit the duration in 3 years as noted and filed. the department you reviewed the preference program as an emergency response to a value actually situation. the second modification we're proposing is a cap at the 20 percent of on units for new development that are dedicated

to the new preference and for unit on resale. that cap is built into the ordinance. as the inclusionary program lotteries are popular 3 thousand plus applicants participated in the last year. the application of the preference to 20 percent to unit through new construction there were one hundred plus units that were dedicated to the ellis preference. the same is for units that are made available for rerentals. there have been rerental units available for resale and with the preference program it's likely that all units that become available will be dedicated to the new ellis

perch. by capping 20 percent we can help to occupy exiting units as well as those evicted. our third modification there with a review of the whole program before the board of supervisors after 3 years. the existing allocation program functions as a lottery given the low impact of the program. there are 17 of the 3 thousand mr. president, that experienced a preference. the proposed application could give preference to long-term tenants who are evicted because of the ellis act. without creating a permanent

preference for one class among others that would provide a planes to look at the program again in 3 years. and the provision for review would mirror the sunset provision for the program which is schedule no 2016 unless the board expend it. that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them and i'm sorry and amy is here from commissioner chiu's office >> hi, good afternoon. i'm amy i'm a elective aid for david chow. thank you for allowing me to speak. supervisor chiu introduced this

with sxhifrz kim and mar and breed to help people who are facing eviction. the ellis act has been interpreted broadly to evict tenant to go out of the rental business. you might have heard of the lee families the adult daughter and folks who have been evicted out of their home where they lived for thirty years because of the ellis act. this represents any household and we have a need to help folks who are getting kicked out of their homelands. we know that the board of supervisors budget analyst report that the nuke of ellis evictions are rising.

specifically in the past year we've seen in the report one hundred and 45 percent increase in ellis you filings which is the highest increase compared to any other type of eviction. the legislation that the supervisor proposes would allow tenants who have occupied their places more than 10 years to help with the priority with the 71 san francisco. i'm not going to go into the details of the legislation since you've heard the components from the planning staff but i'll take a moment to respondent - respond. from the eligibility from 3 to 6 years we've created this timeline for the tenant.

we believe that a long-range time period it necessary to access the housing opportunity and we don't want them to exterior until the tenant finds permanent housing. on the 20 percent cap to the exiting units we understand the existing resale to other populations for people who interthe lottery but we want to respond to making the cap moreover not every tenant who receives an eviction is going to be eligible like age and income would reduce the size of the pool of tenant who would be

eligible for the preference and finally, putting the cap on the eligibility there's a currently system that manages all the applications for existing affordable housing project. and the 3 years legislation while we don't agree with adding a sunset to the legislation we have no problem with adding 3 years on top of the existing evaluation of the program. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. thank you >> thank you sxhirgs. i wanted to let me know as well that brian chewing is here from the affordable housing committee and he'll be happy to a answer questions >> open this up for public

comment. >> sorry i'm dan i'm the policy director at the choibdz community center i have a letter in support of the legislation and addressing the i'll handicap this to the clerk. briefly i think it's i won't get into the urge node for this legislation and role the critical node to assist the residents who are being displaced. currently there's no program that the city has to adjust the folks who are evicted by the ellis act. 60 percent are elderly or

disabled and they're currently paying rent well below market there being a displaced from the city. we feel like it's urgent our city can't stand by and let those families be at a loss. we appreciate the staffs support. first with respect to the reducing the time period i think from 6 to 3 years for the new construction i think it's important to note we - that that 6 year period begins with the issuance of the notice to the tenant for a tenant whose received the nose as a senior they have a year to move out they might fight the eviction

but when they get evoked that's the point they need the housing. the reality t is - the legislation roles back to evictions of 2012. give the pipeline from the mayor's office of housing we don't have a lot of housing coming up. so those tenants who are in the process right now of being evicted their sunset is going to be 2015 and if there's no pipeline those folks don't get housing. we need an extend period of time because of the gap in the pipeline for affordable housing. let me briefly address the issue of the existing housing units at any time important not to put a cap on that it's a different you set of housing.

those units are accessed individually through developments and they're not mechanism for us to track who gets which unit. and tenants are going to have to go out and find the developer and apply. that will create >> sir, your time is up. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner wu. i'm sorry >> one more. >> my apologizes. absolutely. >> i really question giving preference not because there is no not a terrible node for those people to be helped but because there's so many people who have been waiting already. i've known a woman for example

she won the lottery she'd been living from her daughter she doesn't get along with and i was evicted myself i'm not saying this senate well intended but we need to do other things to make it harder to evict people under the ellis act but we need supply. we're meeting not increasing the supply. when he was evicted for example, it was a very unfair situation. the developer it would the ellis act he was 0 going getting rid of everyone in the believe to go get more money. i had 89 evict noticed and he wrought a