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 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