voters approved proposition g, requiring a conditional use opposition in order to locate within any neighborhood commercial district. currently, formula retail is prohibited in the north beach ncd and hayes golf ncd. there is also pending legislation as was discussed earlier that would prohibit formula retell eating establishments and pet supplies stores along a specific stretch of geary boulevard. retell controls applied to mixed use districts also, mixed use in general district, residential transit oriented districts, the chinatown visitor retail district, residential commercial districts, and the japan and western selma's special use district. conditional use is required, even if the establishment already occupies the space. since november 2007, the

commission answered at approximately 25 conditional use requests for formula retell. three have been disapproved and 22 approved. there are currently six pending formula retell -- retails cu 's a department of the 25 that you have heard since 2007, three have been appealed to the board of supervisors. two of the more effectively upheld and one was overturned. the rest of the information is in the report. i am happy to answer any questions if you have it. president olague: thank you. i would like to recognize jillion from supervisor wiener's office. >> commissioners, to appear to use the one that supervisor scott wiener's legislative aides. i just ran up the stairs. he asked me to read you this letter. commissioners, who is directing in connection with your hearing

today on formula retell. in my view, banks should be treated as formula retell. some should require a conditional use authorization, as with other chains, before coming to our neighborhood. i was a strong supporter of proposition g, which created a uniform standard. with few exceptions for formula retail. before proposition g, there was a trend towards banning formula retail in various neighborhoods, out of frustration with the neighborhood's black of being part of the decisions. the voters wisely chose not to ban formula retell but to suggested to the conditional use process. that recognizes that in some instances, formula retell is positive for neighborhood, while in others, it is not. it provides a strong balance the recognizes that each decision about the proposed formula retail establishment in a particular neighborhood is unique. i am concerned that under the commission's interpretation of proposition g, banks are not considered formula retail. this allows banks to enter

neighborhoods without certainty as to whether the banks are positive or negative for those neighborhoods. this is not about whether banks are good or bad. every neighborhood needs banking services, and some are sorely lacking in banks. the question is whether at some point they're too many banks in some other neighborhoods. in neighborhoods with a significant number of banks, additional banks can be bought unnecessarily and charity -- detrimental to a vibrant commercial zones, undermining street energy and our nighttime economy. neighborhood should have a voice in their commercial future, particularly when it comes to formula retail. excluding banks from the rolls undermines that voice. excluding banks also might create a fortune a pressure to enact blanket bans on former retail. i've been consistent in opposing formula retell bans. i recently voted against the pet food chain store ban for geary street.

i said it was unnecessary. because the process provides ample protection to neighborhoods when it comes to a formula retail. when it comes to banks, economic that argument that they're not subject to the conditional use process. thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts on this issue. sincerely, scott wiener. president olague: thank you. will you be here for the discussion part of this? ok. >> can we get a copy of that? president olague call and i would like to open it up for public comment. wrestled prichard it is first. >> good afternoon. russell prichard, representing the hayes valley merchant association. i am 21 your business owner of hayes valley. i own it several home interiors in the 500 block of haze. myself and several other

merchants who have essentially 15-year plus history in our neighborhood have worked very tirelessly to take hayes valley, specifically the four hundred block of 500 block, from one of the worst neighborhoods in san francisco to what is now one of the best neighborhoods in san francisco. we feel is of utmost importance to protect what we have developed in hayes valley, and neighborhood of unique individual businesses, and urge you to put banks within the ban on chain stores, so we will be able to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. especially at this point, with hayes valley on the verge of a very strong and powerful growth in development, with buildings about to rise along octavia boulevard, a new building on the 400 block of hayes street. and a project going up on grove, which will include retail. it is very important that a bank, banks in general, be

included in the ban, so that we can continue to ensure that hayes valley will be the unique neighborhood that we have worked for 20 years to develop. thank you. >> calvin, haight-ashbury neighborhood council, housing and land use chair. the council supports the inclusion of banks in any formula retail calculation and would urge the commission to apply formula retail to banks. second, we have some questions about the application of formula retail use this in our neck of the woods, along eighth street. two formula retail uses, american apparel in the 1600 block southside, entered without

a conditional use here. last year, cex, 1439 haight street. an international chain. it also arrived without, as far as i am aware, any public notice and your hearing. both of these appear, to me, to before miller retail -- a formula retell uses, and it is exceedingly odd how both arrived on haight street without, to my knowledge, any public hearing. and the required cu hearing. taken together with the recent concerns that we have about the conditions imposed on a major

formula retail user and being flaunted by that retail, whole foods, the parking requirements -- excuse me, the staging requirements and hours of operation of their staging. it seems clear to us that the whole question of formula retail uses it needs some review and scrutiny by this commission. i would urge your attention to those three matters on haight street. american a minute -- american apparel, cex, and whole foods. i urge your staff to look into the matter and give us some understanding about what is actually going on iwith the formula retell policy that seems to be observed in the breach in our part of the world. thank you. >> i would like to ask the people standing at the doorway to find a seat. we have had fire marshal issues in the past.

i want to remind everyone in the audience to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. >> good afternoon. my name is tess. i live in the haight ashbury in a 40-year plus resident. please do make sure that banks are included in this. the reason we put this legislation through originally was to protect our local small businesses and to keep the kind of character. when tourists come to san francisco, they do not come to see all of the same stores they have at home. we also want to keep our local small businesses going, because they reinvest. they spend their money here. so please do support that conclusion, and also, make sure that this ordinance is fully applied as it was intended to. and notifying the neighborhood organizations, putting up notices, and more. thank you.

president olague: thank you. i would like to repeat this again. if anyone is there for the petco or the leland avenue item, both were continued. just wanted to let you know. gus hernandez followed by douglas fong. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i just wanted to talk about the formula retail report. the report states that there uses that are not included, but i believe that they are. this is a sample zoning control table near the corridor where i live. as you can see, retail sales in the services actually included in a formula retail as a category. that is a catch-all category. it includes other retail

services, financial services, and more. it is already in the law. there's nothing to change other than implementing the law as it was intended. i also wanted to mention, you had other formula retail use is on the agenda today. petco and target. both of these are not listed separately under formula retail. this is barred, eating, drinking, a liquor store. it is not any one of these. yeah, the planning department chooses which ones they want to see before conditional use. it does not seem right. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is doug, born and raised in san francisco. i am in architecture. i want to speak about this issue of whether banks should be

considered formula retailer not. i would like to continue the discussion and consideration of why banks were not considered in the past. i believe there is a strong functional issue why banks should be considered separately from restaurants and stores. that consideration is that if i need in the street and want to go to a restaurant, i can buy something from a formula restaurant or non-formula restaurant and satisfy myself. if i want to buy merchandise, i can buy it from a formula retailer or a non-formula retailer. but if i need access to my money in a financial-services related to my financial accounts, i need to go to the bank where my account is based. i think there is a considerable advantage and a functional advantage to the consumer in having widespread access to banks to which their accounts are listed. thank you for the time. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> hello. my name is amy.

i want to support what supervisor wiener said. and my neighbor gus. existing for miller retell requires a conditional use hearing when any tiber retail sales and service chain files a permit to move into a neighborhood commercial district. yes, any type of retail sales and service, including financial-services. that is the spirit of the law and is also the letter of the law. some of the planning department over what the the category of retail sales and services is a catch-all that includes financial services. but we can always get the zoning tables for neighborhood commercial districts, even the zoning administrators can do this as well, and see their financial services is included right there under the category heading a retail sales and services. it alleges that a fix is unnecessary to correct this oversight. we just need the planning commissioners to clarify the

financial-services are included in for miller retail, so that any pending or proposed permits require a hearing to determine that there necessary and desirable for san francisco neighborhood districts. to speak to what the gentleman just said, my neighborhood was denied a hearing for the permits. chase is clearly a chain of financial-services with over 5000 standardized establishments. if for miller regional had incorrectly applied to big banks -- if formula retell had been correctly apply to the big banks, two local businesses would not have gotten kicked out to move chase in. many of my neighbors and i do not see national banks as a desirable neighborhood business. now with their drive for excessive profit in district of practices that played a part in the economic downturn of our country and the world. besides, we already have the bank of america around the block and a chase a blocks away.

i would, however, welcome a credit union branch, which are community-focused and not for profit, for my neighborhood. let's follow the spirit and letter of regular retail wall and make sure that the community has and that when national banks want to move into our neighborhood. once again, we can in good -- include financial services without a legislative fix and by falling current legislation. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon. dean preston. before i go into the issue of banks and the planning department interpretation, i want to take a step back and recognize that we're very fortunate to have a formula retail law in san francisco. and a due to several visionary work back in 2003-2004, thanks to then supervisor gonzales and some of the folks in this room

that were very much involved in that effort, these rules were adopted. and then supervisor, now a judge, sandoval, led the average adopt a city-wide prop g small- business protection act. so we're in a position where small businesses in san francisco have significantly more protection against chain store proliferation, and this commission has ruled in favor of against applications for conditional use for formula retail. the good news that appears to get lost in the discussion of banks is the formula retail law as drafted already covers banks. we do not need a new law to do that. it does. as my neighbor pointed out on that table, the formula retell represents the broad categories which includes a range of uses, including banks. the only with the planning

department can reach the conclusion of banks are not covered is to effectively cross out sales and service retail in the law, a broad category. that is what they have done. it is unfortunate. why has the not come before this commission before? the answer is simple. most of the things that would have been in that so-called exemption came to you on a conditional use for another reason. there's or footage was bigger or something else happened. it was pointed out that there may be others that did not even get on your radar. but the reason we have made such an issue of it on the visit there with this bank is that the planning department has determined that the square footage does not trigger cu. so we essentially have the bank with thousands of branches across the nation that is ridiculously able to enter a neighborhood without conditional use. the issue has been brought to the board of appeal. on a permanent appeal, it has not been the kind of analysis that i think is necessary for the planning commission to look at how the planning department

is interpreting this law. i think what we had was, without a lot of analysis, the administrator to get position on this amid other issues on a project. and that has become the law of the land, despite what the formula retail losses. my understanding career planning department is in a difficult position. they have previously taken this position and may not want to deviate from that for the sake of consistency, but that is where this body comes in. i urge you to read the formula retell lot. look at the reference to sales and service retail. [bell rings] thank you. >> hello. my name is david, a 15-year resident of the city. i like to echo the dean's comments and advice and of many of the others. that banks should be covered under the formula retell law. i have looked at it, too.

i worked with mack and dollars. i was following the law as it was being drafted. -- i worked with matt gonzales. why are we giving preferential treatment to banks? it was mentioned that the bank'' cost the mortgage crisis. they took the bailout money, and now we're giving them preferential treatment in san francisco. i think we can do better i also wanted to thank supervisor supervisor wiener:'s office for coming out. i appreciate that letter. i am really glad that we had the formula retell law. other places do not have it. they want to monopolize the whole business areas. look at walgreen's. they have a near monopoly on all pharmacies. there are very few independent pharmacies left. the displaced small businesses, as we saw. there's actually three

businesses at that location. now there's just one chain. there's limited retail space. that is the problem. we only have a finite number of spaces. if you put the chains in there, they're no small mom and pops there. they also pay much higher rents than the local guys can because of the way to cut costs down by using mass production and these cookie cutter methods. they degrade the character of our neighborhoods by making our neighborhoods look like anywhere else in the country. it will hurt tourism. they do not keep the money local, which is important. and that also applies to franchisees. i have had planners telling me, well, it is a franchise, so it is a local business. no, they have to pay franchise fees. that money goes out of state. again, want to go back to the bank issue. the banks are clearly meant to be covered, and there's no need for a legislative fix.

this should just be changed, the process. please direct the planning department to cover banks, as they should be. thank you. >> it afternoon. i am here to urge you not to change the law to include banks this formula retell. i am here to urge of this commission to do is study on formula retail to discuss the ill effects on the economy of san francisco. in 2004, unemployment in san francisco was between 4% and 5%. today, it is just under 10%. that is undoubtedly higher for young people across this country. african-americans, 16 to 19, unemployment rate is over 40%. we have people here who are trying to prohibit legal businesses to actually hire employees to come into our neighborhood. in 2004, formula retell was pushed down our throats without

any study or analysis. we had so-called findings are facts, such as chains pay higher rent. i do not know what that study came from. is not necessarily true. and chains do not reinvest back into the neighborhood or the community. that is ridiculous. i find it pretty hard to actually prove that. in fact, any business that hires people are going to reinvest back into the neighborhood. just recently, stepping on the topic -- sticking with chase bank, they wanted for miller retail uses like grocery stores, bookstores, other uses like banks, actually provide jobs and they provide jobs to first time employees. with regard to the case of from four years ago -- a district 5 resident bought a battery's plus

franchise. many activists fought him and collected signatures, including from dead people. mr. kirk posted a neighborhood meeting that john adams and community college. i attended do you see with the neighborhood would say and no one showed up. one year ago this week i received a phone call from ross. he wanted to find out the status of the chase bank. he said at my office would do whatever it would take to get this to go through. i said the think the neighborhood would like it? he said at bank, the neighborhood it commissioned a study and the bank was on the no. 2 or no. 5 items of stores they wanted in the neighborhood. instead of confusing the issues and expanding a formula retail,

we should start helping all businesses in the valley. a neighborhood ice cream parlor has tried to open and it has been months before they could get their authorization from planning. that to need to help. we need to help the small businesses and create jobs in san francisco. [tone] >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the neighborhood association. let's get to the punchline. we support the idea of banks, financial institutions being included in the large basket of formula retail uses that should be scrutinized by the community and commission. that is what it comes down to. but i want to talk about the history of the 2004 legislation and the previous speaker may or may not have been there, but the impetus for that was too big

fights we had with rite aid and starbucks. we spent a tremendous amount of community energy and time fighting those one by one and realize we can do it. it is not a sustainable way to discuss what kinds of businesses that in our neighborhood. we need a system to create these mechanisms to review these things uniformly. that was what we started with. there are key findings actually in the code. we want to make sure the narrative of the conversation wasn't lost. first is a competitive advantage over independence, whether it's more rent or whatever else, there is often a competitive advantage. it is not an even playing field. the second was the idea of exporting the proceeds of the benefits of economic activity as opposed to moving them through the local economy.

there are studies about this and it's clearly demonstrated that smaller and local independence bonds money through the local economy much more than national or international chains who source from greater distances. third was the issue of community character and the compatibility with existing character and compatibility in the neighborhoods. we are not phoenix. the most significant need is for folks to know these things are happening and at a forum to be able to talk to decision makers about whether these things that. that was the need. it's not about whether it's a financial institution, coffeehouse or clothing store. we created a definition of formula retail but did not go in and change these categories. we had to lump them together, which was clumsy at best, which is why you're getting this technocratic debate over whether

the financial institution is an aura out. we would have been writing the entire code so it would have had to take that subcategory how. the issue here is really about what level of scrutiny and community voice and commissioner involvement should there be when formula retailers moved into san francisco neighborhoods. [tone] thank you. >> i am active with the transportation planning committee and i work with the hayes valley merchants and the business community meetings. obviously with everything that has been said today, i don't have terribly much to add in terms of voicing strong support for including banks as chain

stores as the legislation as currently written. my opinion is planning has misinterpreted something and we look forward to you addressing that. we have worked very hard to have community involvement. i'm involved a lot of different community groups. at the most recent meeting of eight different community groups, the rather egregious entry of chase coming in was very passionately spoken to. since i cannot add terribly much to what has been said, i will leave it at that. we strongly support your taking

a very active and clear position on this call identifying banks as the chain stores. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a resident of district 5. i am having a strong sense of deja. i'm flashing back to about 13 years ago. the issue was in the south of market. this is in the beginning of the dot com them which changed the landscape issue then. the issue was that the dot com offices were moving into spaces south of market that were not zoned for office. suddenly there was the interpretation that those were not offices, they are actually business services. b