-- by locations. -- will be based by locations. all of the relevant licenses. by location with what they are inspecting, and because we will be trying this certificate system along with the licensing system, there is an ownership change that that will create. going to one hand and threw another hand. this is just an example. a gas station. i was not very creative. it has three locations in the city. each location requires four distinct licenses.

in each of those months, that particular owner receives three bills per location for each one of them. the consolidation would tie the certificates and the ownership name and location. the first time, what we would do is actually the mailing that is just about to go out -- so i can talk about it rather. we just did our one cycle, and it is regular as you see it at this moment in time. you would see this regularly. starting in march, we would prefer rate it so that we could get everyone into the march timeline. the august and september ones

would be prorated to get them to the date, and then in 2013, the bill would be one bill for all of the months. in this case, it would be $3,000. right now, what they are paying is $2,000 in 2012 between march and december. >> this makes sense. this is brilliant. >> thank you. i wish i could say it is my own idea. these are the licenses that are not been consolidated, and i will give you a better list when it is completely firmed up. for obvious reasons. they are not businesses. they are masseuses, photographers, so they do not have a certificate numbers, and there is nothing to tie them into. as many of you may know or may not know, where they have a

license, a swimming pool, a mixed area businesses, i.e. fitness centers that are privately owned as well as recreation and park or homeowners associations, so we're having to find out some exemption classes, and we do obviously have people that are not registered businesses, so we will figure that out, but nonetheless, there are about 15,000 accounts that will be consolidated, so these are the ones that are not being consolidated because they are two individuals. this is generally the timeline. let me back out. i tried to be as high a level as possible, and hopefully our conversation can be as specific as we choose, and i kind come back if we need more specificity -- i can come back. i believe by president chiu and

the mayor's office to change these licenses to the march timeline. that means, let me make sure i got this right. the september bill will be able to be pro rated because the legislation will be held, and for people who normally get a 12-month bill and, in august, we would be sending them a bill that gives them only to march, so in february when we send out the next bill, which is really do at the end of march, we will look at pro rating it for september as well as march. subsequently, the next cycle of billing, we would have a nine- month cycle. we would slowly bring everybody on board to a 12-month cycle, so it is a slow uptick to 2013 for both the legislative process, which we cannot do anything until the legislation and the

codes are changed. in addition, it facilitates a little bit of it easing businesses, as well. i am sure there are lots of questions, so i will continue, and that is it. that is really the high-level consolidation project. as i said, there are about 10,000 accounts that will ultimately be consolidated out of the 15,000. the net difference is the 4000 that will not be consolidated. i still cannot tell you exactly how the 10,000 accounts will percolate up for the number of true businesses. i spoke about the 15,000, and i gave you the gas station. obviously, those 12 accounts are now going to aggregate to one business, so we are still working through the process of cleaning and mapping the businesses to figure out exactly who goes to watch.

we will be doing some work around communication, working with your organization, as well. we will do an early mainly to businesses to communicate that this is what this is like. we think that maybe some businesses that have licenses, that they no longer do, that they have not activated them. they have been inactivated in a timely manner. i would say one of the key things that we have discussed, point for the small businesses are potentially painful but i want to put up on the table is the licenses right now, as you know, you have to pay for it in the entirety. it is something you have to pay for. we do not allow partial payments, because, frankly, that would increase the cost and the inspection cycles, and it is for a full year, analyzing. -- annualizing.

paying for the entirety of the bill, which is why it is really important that we be really clear in advance. this is what we think your bill is going to be. you have an opportunity to inactivate. something you do not do anymore. the key benefit will allow us to do this on line. our online payment efforts have been particularly successful due to the last cycle moving more than 50%, in some cases a% of our stuff online, 90% for filing, so that has allowed us to do that, and, frankly, that is more accurate. we have a cycle similar to what we do for registration, which was around a 72-hour turnaround by moving things online. so that is it in a nutshell. we have had some discussions

with the subcommittee about the impact. we have the standardized on march because the cost impact was already the greatest in march. it was the most nominal about point. public health, for that matter, which has a series of licenses. there a pro license is already in march, said the incremental change is still something, but it is phenomenal compared to if we moved it to another timeline. so that is one of the reasons why we chose to standardize on march. we have had challenges with the june dates and the august dates because the budget is being passed, and many times, the sea is not completely settled. is the department increased it, or it is cpi adjusted, that is not nailed and to write around now, and that makes it more precarious about what structure to use, so that was the of the

rationale. i will open it up for discussion and conversation. thank you. president george bush -- president o'brien: thank you. commissioner yee riley? commissioner yee riley: this will save a lot of time and save a lot of trees, so thank you. president o'brien: i agree with what commissioner yee riley said. i think you're simplifying it. paying online will increase revenue. welcome to the 21st century. president o'brien: commissioner

clyde? vice president client: -- clyde: think you for your presentation. -- thank you for your presentation. this is right after income taxes are due and right after the difficult time of the year, at least in the hospitality industry typically, so there will need to be quite a vote bit of outreach done -- there will need to be quite a bit of outreach done. there was a wisdom in these fees and licenses being issued at different times throughout the year, so it will take some significant outreach. i believe for the smaller businesses and people who might be encountering cash flow problems. i do know, i will say that i believe the tax collector's

office generally works with taxpayers to the best of their ability, and i would like to just hope that as you develop this rollout that you have some room to assist people in case, you know, inadvertently they are not going to be -- we know that in the downturn, the tax collector and the treasure worked very hard to minimize the impact on businesses and help them pay, so it really is a concern, is a figure for the work that you have done. i agree it would be very helpful to see a consolidated bill. my question, will the payroll tax be the same? will it be analyzed, with quarterly or biannual payments? >> at this time, i do not believe there have been any legislative changes.

president o'brien: seeing no further commissioner comment, is there any public comment? commissioner: there was a meeting last week that it is time to start going out and informing businesses which would obviously be doing some work on that. we put it in our news letter that went out last week. so, again, trying to make sure that businesses are informed, educated, we already did get one response, which was very interesting, from a business that had three locations, and we are looking forward to this. i think we're going to have a great number of businesses that

are going to be really pleased, and when i think about our cafés, those are operated at a really small margins. as much information we can get out. the fact that we are able to take payment with credit cards it, i think -- yes. to help deal with the cash flow. commissioner: would you be willing to come to merchants' associations to talk about this? >> yes, we are happy to coordinate and do any outreach and sort of early discussion. commissioner: yes, and merchants would be happy to hear about this. it would be something positive for the city. >> just to make sure we are clear, we are very sensitive to the needs of adoption. we are really working very hard to make sure we deal with the notification to make sure we can

both prepare financially, and let's be honest, to really make sure what we have is accurate, that we are not even remotely -- that may not be the case all of the time. president o'brien: ok, thank you. much appreciated. next item, please. clerk: commissioners, you are now on item 7, the presentation and discussion on the possible impact fees for 3176 17th street. we have a presentation from sommer pederson. commissioner, any remarks? commissioner: i invited sommer pederson to be year to talk

about your experience with the impact fees. we're going to be coming up with doing some discussions about some joint agenda items with the planning commission, so this is designed to be an informational presentation to you in terms of what our small businesses, especially those looking to open businesses in the eastern neighborhood, with the impact of the eastern neighborhood, and the mta transit fee, and so, i have invited sommer to be here with a presentation. you know, in terms of preparing for you as we move forward, looking at this topic that has been on the committee project

list. commissioner: 0, again. >> could evening. -- good evening. we learned a lot of this year about opening a business. it has been an eye-opener. i'm going to present our experience, highlighting the experience of impact fee. we started this project last may, 2010, and i will take you through the steps. we began our warehouse search in the mission district, of which is our business model demographic. we looked at many different demographics which could be affordable off for our business plan. all of the warehouse is we looked at arizona dpr -- were

zoned pdr 1. we were advised to get a letter of the determination to get a clear answer. in september 2010, we chose our location and requested a letter of determination by the planning department 4 $577. we asked if a bowling alley and anbar were allowed. in november 2010, we received a letter of determination. the letter stated that a bowling alley was allowed but the restaurant, bar area was limited to 22500 square feet. we felt we could work with this restriction. we were also told we would be subject to a neighborhood impact the of the $3 per square foot for the space, equalling

$24,000. our warehouse is approximately 8000 square feet. we may be subject to an npa and -- mta impact fee of the $10 per square feet at $80,000. the planner could not determine the fees are she directed me to the administrator, jay. this was a huge concern as we are a small business and we could not afford this. with this question in mind, we polled questions on -- customers on transportation. we had planned to install like a parking. since we are not a business operating tear careened -- during business hours, it should not burden or impact muni. in november 2010, i contacted the that he administrator about these fees. i spoke with jay and how he

would calculate the amount we would have to pay. this was a confusing conversation as he was referencing credit that would be adjusted and going to the fee we were paying. i thought he was telling me they would be combined due to the credit he was referring to. i found out i was wrong last week. in january 2011, when we finally signed the lease. january through march we began the architectural drawings and a fund-raising as investors -- in may 2011, when submitted our change of use to the planning department. in july 26, 2011, the planning department approved our change of use application. we are very excited. our planner compote -- calculated the fees to be $24,000 which we had budgeted for.

when i asked for confirmation the mta fee was included, he said that was different. my jaw hit the floor and i was in disbelief. i contacted jay to discuss within the conversation we had in november 2010. he calculated our feet to be $19,000 based on our square footage of the warehouse. i explained our retail area was under 2500 square feet as was required. he understood the issue and recommended the planning department would need to advise him to treat the bowling area within the zoning so our feet could go down. this could save us about $15,000. we are working on this with the office of economic work force and the office of work force development. how these are impacting s, these fees seemed to have been designed for retailers that are

creating new construction. the fees are way for them to give back to the community they are potentially impacting. the eastern neighborhood he was designed to protect industrial spaces from getting swallowed up by new developments, restaurants fall into that category. we're not developers nor are we taking away a a building. a restaurant is staying under the required 2500 square feet. we are -- why are we getting fees on the entire space when retail it is a quarter of that? we are adding 20 local jobs and in an enterprise zone. we are also adding a lot of tax revenue. that would have a positive impact on the neighborhood. we are running out of money to complete our construction. we are looking for help for these debilitating fees.

if we cannot get assistance, and it could force is to move out of the city or give up on the business entirely. we have been struggling with this whole situation. $44,000 in potential fees based on taking an abandoned warehouse is really frustrating for us and hard as we are a small business. i am open to questions. >> thank you for that eliminating presentation. vice president adams: i think it is crazy. i wanted to -- i am glad you're talking to the office of small business. i think they could help you out. what could we do so that we can get planning and sf -- to talk to each other. i think that is ridiculous.

i am going to get on my soap box. you are a small business. you are changing -- i like the thing you said. it has been vacant for three years. i understand what they're doing in the eastern neighborhoods but it is defeating the purpose of what the project is supposed to be. it is a bowling alley. it should be under 2300 square feet. >> the bowling alley takes up a huge chunk. commissioner adams: i feel their frustration. i want to see this bowling alley built. >> it was so frustrating. he recommended i reach out to the city agencies to help with the planning. the biggest frustration is that the planning department wrote the letter of determination

saying that boeing was permitted but we have fees on the entire space. we will pay for the retail. we understand it goes back into the community. we want to help and give back as we can afford. but paying $14,000 between the -- $44,000 is a big deal. we're going to open without furniture. commissioner adams: this is the kind of bureaucracy that is a problem and a hindrance. >> why should she be moving back and forth between departments? if you have your plants and you show them to the mta, then this is equally a problem going back and forth and getting, being told guests and then been told -- yes and then being told no.

>> he did say, talk to the office of small business and the office of economic work force. have them write a letter so the planning department can advise me how to see you. i am looking at a floor plan and are letter saying it is right here but he needed all of those steps. that is part of the process. commissioner riley: d you have any suggestions as far as how we can help? >> there are a couple of things that are going to take place. there will be a joint committee meeting. we will need to include the sfmta. we need to look at the impact fees and how they are applied. that is more long-term. i think in the short term, the commission can direct staff to write a letter to all departments in regards to who administers the impact fees.

in our current economic climate, considerations may need to be given. what is most important for the economy is job growth. commissioner clyde: i wanted to say that this week i had a similar conversation with a different business. it took almost two years to turn a small cafe into a cafe /restaurant. it took two years because of planning and the building department and the building inspector, you know, having problems within their own department and doing advocacy for the smallest little business. i just heard a very similar story costing the person a lot of money and a lot of time trying to straighten these things out. i agree with the director that

jobs are number one. you are to be commended for hanging in here. i am sure that with this example and others, the advocacy can be applied to show that it is in their best interest to get people up and operating. just getting that as opposed to, let's just cover ourselves or make sure, getting you up and open is the highest thing that they can do. >> we appreciate that. the biggest thing that i keep thinking about is that the fee structure is exactly the same for me as a small-business person is a large scale developer. as i was researching how mta comes up with their fee schedule, a lot of it has to do with the burden, they continue to use the word burden, on

ridership. there would be more of a bird in during peak hours because they might have to add more bus lines. we are having about 20 staff per day. they will be hired locally. we opened after 5:00 p.m. we do not see where that burden comes from. when i asked the planning about an exemption, they never heard of that. shouldn't the hours of operation be something? the the amount of employees? shouldn't there be, a sliding scale? what is the use? if 6000 square feet is a bowling lane and there's only going to be 36 people, how come we are being charged all of this or footage? maybe there are some gray areas. it seems like ours are it

definitely something. we are opening after 5:00 p.m. people are not committing to a bowling alley. that should cut that in half. >> i would like to make an observation. i only travel on public transportation. nighttime hours, there is plenty of available transportation. that is a very good point. commissioner dooley: i am not sure if this is proper but we have another business from the same area. i was wondering if we could call him up to share his experiences. >> i would like to hear another experience that nobody has any objection? please, come forward. >> my name is aben. i completely feel this person's paints.