Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 14, 2013 8:14am-8:44am PDT

8:14 am
to be concensus for rules of appeals should be codified and both supervisors kim and chiu were interested in increasing notification. our director committed to provide increased online notification for exemptions that would be searchable. supervisor kim notice it maybe fact reduced to allow appeals until the last approval instead of the first approval which is essentially the situation that we have. supervisor kim announced she plans to introduce an alternative proposal and after this commission continued this issue to be heard on april 2nd.
8:15 am
there was a minor alcohol and tobacco control. last week since your hearing supervisor chiu did recommend all modifications and this week they did approve the final modification. they considered supervisor chiu's portion of the northeast ordinance that was before the board this week which is merely the expansion of the program to allow tdr's to be transferred to all districts in the area and voted to approve this portion of the ordinance back this appeal is
8:16 am
the project is before the dr is to construct a 3 story vertical edition in addition to a 2 story home. they had 3 main concerns. first the project would have a significant impact of historic resources and impact to public views and 3rd the dr action is inconsistent with the planning commissions intent required to the front yard setback. during the dr hearing which is before, the planning commission recommended a total of 3 feet for a total of 5 feet from the wall which will allow greater visibility of the adjacent building. the opponent argued it's offset impact to the historic resource building. if this were in fact a mitigation to avoid a significant impact, you could not be sent to the
8:17 am
final review. a design concern to increase street visibility of a building feature on the adjacent properties and as such this change was a condition of approval for the building permit and not a sequel mitigation. given there is no increase impact to the environment with these changes, it should not be considered mitigation measures to the project. staff also discuss with the board that the overall height of the building would remain shorter than the buildings. and are not designated vista and ocean views would not be blocked by the projected addition. concerns related to the commissions an approved motion and intent do not substitute
8:18 am
nullifying the original. there is a hearing before the board of appeals which is the appropriate body to address the concerns does it match the revised conditions and that's been set for may 8th. while supervisor wiener he agreed with the decision and analysis of the department and the board voted unanimously to uphold it. also adopted on final reading this week where the market street mason historic district for the alcohol restricted use district. most notably as i mentioned earlier for new introductions this week supervisor kim did introduce an alternative ordinance that would amend chapter 31 of our administrative code. we'll bring this item to hearing in both you and historic preservation commission as quickly as possible. our intent
8:19 am
is to public our report next thursday to allow us to bring this item before the commission at your next hearings which will be your hearing on april 25th and on may 1st if they do in fact decide to have the hearing. that conclude my board report and i have a short note from the z a about the board of appeals. i will go with that. the board of appeals met last night and considered one item. this is an appeal for building permit that will allow a new 4 story building at 721 beach street in z 2 zoning district. the planning commission approved this. that concludes my report. are there any questions?
8:20 am
>> questions? doesn't seem to be. thank you. >> there was no historic preservation yesterday. if there is nothing further we can go to public comment. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission is afforded when the item is reached. i have no speaker cards. >> any general public comment? >> okay. seeing none. next item, please. >> this will place you under your regular calendar formula retail in the upper market ncd proposed planning commission policy that would establish a methodology for determining the concentration of formula retail and set the appropriate level of concentration for formula retail in the upper market neighborhood nct and ncd. preliminary recommendation: adoption >> good afternoon. we are really excited to bring this to you today commissioners before we dive in i do want to acknowledge regina, who is the executive director of the small
8:21 am
business commission. she's been critical to these effort. she can't be with us this afternoon because earlier today she was selected to be on a jury. it's important to acknowledge the good work that she's done as part of this. so commissioners as many of you do know of course, this commission members of this commission and members of the small business commission have been meeting informally and regularly for about a year now. looking at the fundamental question of how we can stream line the land review process for small businesses. the title on your screen if we can pull up the overhead please is kind of where we began. this next slide is where we wound up like many good planning initiatives. it's a pilot exploratory project and like most we have an acronym. s bchlt p p program. so, i think
8:22 am
we into ed to address the question of why we single out small businesses in the first place. almost all of the city's businesses are in fact small businesses. these businesses account for half of employment in this city. as most commission they company contribute in a very meaningful way to our neighborhood quality of life and fabric we have in our neighborhood district in particular. a little bit of background for how we are here today. staff do hear concerns from the small business community regarding the red tape and time and process that's associated with opening or expanding a small business. our general feeling and we think that you share this commissioners, is that process for this sake of process when
8:23 am
it doesn't confer any additional value, is not good government and in the case of many small business approvals we feel there may be a little bit of this going on. we did begin to host this series of informal discussions. you can see on the screen the names of those that participated. you of course no who you are commissioners. i want to call president steve adams is an executive for bay area focus bank looking to funding small businesses particularly and he's involves with small business groups and castro area, kathleen dully, a long time north beach small business owners, she's served as a
8:24 am
business leader. lastly commissioner, luke o'brien has managed various areas in the economies including real estate and he's involved in construction and civic affairs locally and further afield. so commissioners these informal discussions evolved into an effort to develop a protocol under which we can move small business project through the required land use approval process without undue delay. now this is a planning commission policies. it's not unlike what you did last week with your stimulus policy and not what you are going to consider next on your agenda with respect to formula retail in the upper market area. so did we get into this
8:25 am
predicament. land use role has increased dramatically since 1987 when the neighborhood controls kicked in. we have seen 80 amendments. with relative certainty on a counter basis. at a years ago, nearly all permits and neighborhood commercial districts were acted on over the counter. you can see on your screen and looking at an out of date figure in 2007 we had a substantial drop off. install businesses require
8:26 am
some review from you for small businesses. they require signing a lease and making payments before getting land use permits, these same businesses wind up making payments for months before they open for business. we have a situation where the expenditures for small business begins substantially ahead of any income being received. that's a many month long process and it can cost 10s of thousands of dollars. the irony of these regulations that cause delay, at least in part were intended to discourage formula retail businesses. yes formula retail businesses are the ones that are most financially equipped to deal with that delay. so we are looking at a
8:27 am
procedure here, a policy that can invert a formula retail controls. lastly on this slide commissioners, backlogs, commission calendars especially as the economy tends to heat back up. there is a timely constrain. specifically the comprehensive 20 plus page briefings that we prepare for every item on your calendar, they demand a good deal of time to prepare. for many small business applications we would argue that is probably not necessarily. here is a proposal we came up with. it's a policy that applied to conditional use applications the s p 4 p has 3 components. we get these applications to you within 90 days of application which is a month or more less. secondly,
8:28 am
we would commit to placing every sp 4 case on the calendar. typically 3 quarters of those items are acted on without being moved for discussion. the 3rd item, as i mentioned before we do prepare robust commission briefing package for every item and that takes time and time well spent when we are dealing with a major new building and any other project of scale. if we are dealing with routine small business application, we are not sure that a huge briefing document makes sense. so we are proposed a new 2 page document calling a project summary and motion. a type of document that is going to evidence compliance with applicable code requirements and we think it's a right level of analysis for
8:29 am
these types of projects. to illustrate, this is what we are talking about on your screen on the left hand side we have thumb nails of the commission briefing packet for 900 square foot expansion for a restaurant. that document is 32 pages. on the right hand side is a project for that motion. this is a sample of that same project, it's 2 pages. we think it's going save time and money for the city and applicants and we hope you find this type of briefing useful. die want to mention this is a sort of expand the pie solution. we are not trying to expand the project. we are trying to make it move through the process quickly. one more point on the overhead to drive this point home. there is no value added
8:30 am
solely by the virtue of the length of the document. on the left we have a 17-page motion for a restaurant expansion. i would like to ask you if you have any guesses for the project on the right. any set for that page on the right? 18 ballpark. we have a situation where a 42,000 feet baseball stadium was an approved with a 10 page motion and a 19 square foot expansion for a restaurant
8:31 am
27 pages. back to the s p 4, we are only opening up to conditional use applications. this is the most common application type that requires a hearing. we are further limiting this proposal to further types of conditional use applications. we are really trying to target these projects. what type of proposals cannot participate. you can see shows on your screen now. no formula retail uses, no storefront consolidation, no outdoor activity at the rear of a property, no commercial parking. no removal of housing, no use sizes beyond as of right limits, no hours of operation beyond hours of right limits and no alcohol accepting beer and wine for bona fide restaurants and no massage
8:32 am
establishments and tobacco paraphernalia and medical can bus dispensaries. the last one, i apologize the image on the screen is not visible. the package is visible. this applies to areas where are both zoned neighborhood commercials and where the mayor's invest in the program area. the conflict of those two areas is visible on the screen in black right now. if you are not familiar with it, the neighborhood program is a departmental effort to strengthen and revitalize economic activity. these areas have dedicated staff from office of small business and work force development and we think there is a natural synergy between the sp 4 and the program. the
8:33 am
last couple of issues you should beware of, if you do participate in the s p 4 we'll ensure that we have staff ready hee available to help you and you will become aware of this program and we are asking the applicant to apply for these documents. the last slide, s p, this is an exploratory program. we are adopting to do through a policy. we can go back and adjust it. the ability to do that, we are also an allowing a bit of flexibility on a director who can -- disqualify
8:34 am
a program that you do not approve or a type of project that really strikes us as being out of the ordinary or particularly complex. the director can also modify the geographic eligibility for the program within the nc district and this is an effort so we don't get over enrollment and under enrollment. the small business commission conducted a hearing and recommend that you adopt you today which is what we are suggesting as well. we think it a policy that's going to stream line important projects for small businesses without adversely affecting further application. thank you for your time commissioners. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you, any public comment on this item? seeing
8:35 am
none, commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i think this is extremely well done. i do have some questions. the first is in regards to not an allowing this quicker approval for small business that had was providing a commercial parking place or which i would think would have less of an impact than one who didn't because presumably this is a new use. many of their patrons might be driving this. they would be parking on the street or they would be parking in provided places. it would seem as though that shouldn't be a disqualifier for this. that is my opinion. the second area i had concern over is that you are allowing a fast
8:36 am
tracking for beer and wine. there are issues of the kind of impact of establishments can serve alcohol but the type of alcohol really, especially if it's a full service restaurant already, they have to have over 50 percent food service. it shouldn't make any difference. the other thing i would want to include is discretion over appearance. abbreviated report is a great idea. i always thought our report said the same thing three different times. i think it's a great plan, if we are approving, we would like to see what it is. we want to see what it's going to look like and perhaps even a quick map of what the inside
8:37 am
are going to look like too, although that's less of a concern. the other situation would be we may want to have a consideration on the disallowing any formula retail for san francisco base companies particularly those that are just reaching the threshold or are fairly low number. i think the san francisco soup company is one example and there are a number of them that were originally not formula retail but they have now become that. we want to look at with some discretion on that. and you already answered my question about staff discretion because i understand the director and staff can pull out ones they feel do not fit into here. i think this is actually very good legislation and i would
8:38 am
have time permitting loved to have participate with the other commissioners because i'm a small business owner and have been for 41 years and i think of all the services, i think dentist and along with pod -- we have the usually small business issues but the medical issues where they would be able to send patients to hospitals and it has to be done in house. also the need for parking for a lot of businesses. >> commissioner wu? >> thanks. i would like to thank you. using the policy is a way to test ideas that we've
8:39 am
had seeing what we did last week and now this week. and i think this is a targeted way to start to get at maybe issues of backlog which i assume we are going to be seeing more applications to the department in the next coming years. looking at the map it occurred to me that i do think we should keep it in these are nct's, but there are a number of mixed use districts that somewhat function like that, so soma, chinatown. i wouldn't suggest put ting it in this pilot but i do think looking forward if the pilot is successful we want to look at what other directs do have this heavy retail commercial corridor phenomenon. >> commissioner hillis? >> just a question on this definition of small business. how is that, i know it's a
8:40 am
confusing definition watt small business commission but how is it defined? >> it's a good question. it's not defined. we approached the question as we have the question of what is pdr, in the planning code we define what it is not instead of what it is. it's a criteria that makes something none knot eligible in the program. >> okay. i know formula retail is exempt, but formula retail can they come in and say it's otherwise, would it be kicked out? >> it's not included in the planning code. it a term of art. the office of small business has a working definition which involves a hundred employee threshold. as far as your policy is proposed it's really an element which is
8:41 am
eligible to participate. we have named it a small business. we are saying what can't participate rather than what it is. >> okay. then i agree with commissioner's wu's comments. do we know what applications would have been part of the policy in the last five years because it's limited to these. it's a lot more obviously in the cities. do we know how many of these, how many cu's have been filed in the district? >> we don't. that's part of the reason we are approaching this with a soft touch as we can to allow flexibility to expand and contract because of the way our information is structured, we can't pull those out without coming to each individual case file. we want to make sure the program isn't over subscribed or under subscribed. >> i won't if others can benefit from this. what we are
8:42 am
giving people is a short process. things would come off the consent calendar. i agree we almost get too much information on some of these simpler items. so it's a good policy. >> commissioner moore? >> i want to thank mr. side who has done an excellent job to put this together and guide us through it. i also want to mention for all planning commissioners that this is first time in my time in the commission for a model of grading policy, there are many other issues by which this commission could organize together with other commission to address policies on other issues, housing etc. in this particular case it's exciting and exhilarating time because working with three commissioners from the small business commission, their director and mr. cider create a
8:43 am
high level of dialogue which is truly amazing. since there was not a lot of turnover, except for commissioner miguel, it created like a continuity which allowed to really dig deep as far as quite a few of the commissioners of small business owners themselves, but it did not over step into areas where there was not really collective expertise. i personally wanted to take more time to find it very -- enriching as part of the scope. >> most of us remember john's cafe and i don't know that a lot of people would have been driving from somewhere else to go to that cafe


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on