tv [untitled] November 29, 2013 8:30pm-9:01pm PST
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 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
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on