unintended consequences. there are a lot of things that go in consideration of where to put a new store or branch, and something that has been challenging to date is the planning department is easily backlogged and so this adds another category where planners have to spend months, as does the project sponsor, going through very stringent criteria. so i would suggest that perhaps there be more analysis and economic studies, you heard there's a lot of job growth associated. chase has already hired thousands of people in california. last year i think there were over 4,000 new positions and a large bulk of them in the bay area and san francisco in particular. i know i'm already over -- i'm not over time yet. so the last thing i'll say is banks are different and that was part of the rationale historically, that the nature of the bank is to have branches, so there's very few

financial institutions, even credit unions which fall under the criteria of having 10 or more or more than 10 locations. and so the impact will be less competition and less access and there are a lot of areas in the city that already aren't adequately served. vice president o'brien: ok. thank you. any other public comments on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner dwight? commissioner dwight: it seems to me the argument objectionable sign inches is an oversimplification. i would think the objection would be we know banks are highly competitive and they have deep pockets, and if they choose -- if one bank chooses to set up in a neighborhood, it's likely to attract other competitors and thereby taking over limited retail space in these smaller neighborhoods and driving up rents, so i think there are some consequences that perhaps haven't been put together before the commission

today, in support of this sort of thing. i'm just saying i think that we should look at all sides of the debate here. vice president o'brien: commissioner dooley? commissioner dooley: actually, i agree with what commissioner dwight says, and i don't really see requiring a c.u. process is going to be a hardship. these are large corporations, these are not mom and pop companies that will have a problem dealing with the c.u. process. really, this is just a loophole that is being closed. and in our packets, we see that this was supported by a majority, or a large amount of merchant organizations. the c.u. process does work, and i don't feel that there's a reason why banks need to be allowed to go into spaces without a c.u. when smaller independence, all kind of people are required to do

c.u.'s. so i just think that it's a good piece of legislation, and it's going to prevent banks from taking over more retail spaces in our neighborhoods. vice president o'brien: ok, any other commissioner comments? what about our new commissioners? any comments? no, ok. i don't mean to put you on the spot, even though i just did that. i'm kind of torn to be quite honest. i see the kind of -- the point of both sides on it. i don't really -- i do -- i'm concerned about legislation that can kind of come from, if it's possibly from a small very active group of people that are

just reacting to a situation and then we introduce this city-wide legislation in response to a localized situation. we had a lot of legislation that came across over the last 10 years that kind of came out of a knee jerk reaction, so i would like to put the brakes on something like that just as a philosophy in dealing with legislation. but haven't said that, when i first heard about this proposal, i kind of sort of wondered why the banks were given an exception. i do see there is possibly the presenter from the -- have supervisor mar's office never really got a satisfactory answer to that. it's possible there is a little bit of a difference between banks and other institutions that are the target of the formula retail legislation.

i don't feel convinced that it will convince the banks' ability to compete, to be honest. i think if we are concerned about foreign banks not being limited to this and local or national banks being subjected to it, then i think we could recommend that that situation and that imbalance be addressed. i'm sure there is a way we can get around that. i just -- the fair play part of me says why are banks given exceptions? probably the banks that are going to be hit by this more than any are really thriving right now. they have resources up the ying-yang. not that there is anything wrong with that and that's a reason to go after somebody, but everybody else has to deal with the c.u. process, so the

only thing that i can think of year that from i have heard so far is the distinction from foreign and national banks, that discrepancy, and maybe somebody could be instituted into that. but otherwise i find it very hard not to sort have been sympathetic to the idea that banks should have to compete and do what they have to do the same as everyone else. i don't think it's going to shy the banks away from wanting to get into an area if they want to get into an area, i think they'll do what they have to do to get in there. that's my two cents' worth. so with that, as the president, i need to find somebody who can make a motion and get somebody to second it and put it to a vote. >> i would like to make a motion to support supervisor's mar's legs regarding banks being considered as formula retail. >> vice president o'brien: do we have a second? >> i second that.

vice president o'brien: ok, can we have a roll call on it. >> commissioner dooley made a motion to support file number 120047. seconded by commissioner white. on that motion, commissioner dooley commissioner dooley: yeah. >> commissioner dwight. commissioner dwight: yes. >> commissioner o'brien. vice president o'brien: yes. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> yes. >> and commissioner white. commissioner white: yes. >> commissioner yee riley was not on this vote. vice president o'brien: can i reintroduce the president back to take over the proceedings.

president adams: commissioners, as announced at the start of the main items in the meeting, we're now moving to item eight, discussion and possible action to make recommend dagses to the board of supervisors onboard board file number 120188, planning, building codes, small business month fee waiver program and we have a presentation by, actually regina dick-endrizzi was scheduled, but we do have a representative from the supervisor's officey. and in your packet is a copy of the legislation.

>> evening commissioners, katie tang on behalf of supervisor char men chu. she has introduced legislation that would provide fee waiver for two different things during small business month. we celebrate small business week in may. we decided to extend this for the entire month. so the first fee waiver that we are seeking, for the board's approval is regarding awning replacements this is not for new awnings but to encourage small businesss to change out existing awnings that may be in poor condition. the rationale behind this is in working with a lot of our merchant corridors and also the office of economic and workforce development, we have been working very hard to try to energy businesses to maintain their storefronts, make it more attractive and make it a more friendly place for the community to shop. and so we have actually done a few pilot projects in our district, one on noriega street around 30th avenue and one in the 40th avenue area where the

city has provided funding for several businesses to change up the storefronts. we have do it in consecutive blocks. it's really made a huge difference, but obviously we don't have the resources to continue doing that, so this legislation would hope to provide an incentive for businesses to take advantage of the fee waiver and replace their existing awnings. that may be in poor condition. and so fee waivers, they actually would affect the planning department and d.b.i., so depending on the type of work that you're doing, the permit fees can vary. just a very basic level, i think awning replacement might entail a $500 permit fee. so for a small business, we think that may be a huge help. if you're doing more than that, the fee can range up to $1,000 or month. so the difference is if you just simply replace the awning canopy, that's one permit fee. if you're replacing the structure that's attached to a building, that's an additional fee. if you have wording on your awning, that's another additional fee.

so this really adds up and again we just hope that it would be a huge help for businesses. the second fee waiver would, has to do with electrical permit waiver. so what we were trying to do is encourage businesses to install lighting on their storefronts for pedestrian-level lighting. so this would help to encourage pedestrian safety on the streets and sidewalks. this would just be a permit fee waiver through the department of building inspection. so for both of these fee waivers, we have worked with the planning department and d.b.i. and they have both are great partners in this and we have also -- had quite a few brainstorming sessions with the office of economic workforce development and office of small business on how can we help our small businesses. we have done sidewalk sales during small business week, but we're really trying to figure out ways that we can help the businesses, you know, incentivize them to do more for their storefronts so i'm happy to take any questions that you may have.

president adams: any questions? commissioner riley. commissioner yee riley: thank you. so i think it's a very good idea to help the small business owners who help get some work done, so the fee waiver would be only if you apply for the permit during the month of may, but you don't have to complete the month during the month of may? >> actually we clarified in the legislation, especially when it comes to planning department, these fee waivers are generally issued on the same day. and so the legislation specifies that if the permit is issued in the month of may and the reason for that is that we say you simply apply for it in may, you say that your awning work entails a lot of work, the planning department would have to use a lot of resources to track the business down and make sure that they complete their work and track the fee waivers. so it applies to all permits that are issued in may. commissioner yee riley: that makes sense, thanks. president adams: commissioner dooley. commissioner dooley: i'm just curious about what kind of

outreach is going to be included in this so that folks out there can have plenty of time to hear about this? >> yes, supervisor chu, when the legislation was introduced, there were some articles written in the two major chinese newspapers, so that applies to a lot of the, especially on irving street, judah, irving, we have a lot of monolingual merchants that we really wanted to outreach to. we are going to continue to work with the merchant associations, the office of economic and workforce development, they're a partner in this and they work with a lot of corridor managers. they'll be spreading the word. obviously, we are going to have one-pager flyers. they'll be available through the office of small business as well to face out. president adams: commissioner o'brien. vice president o'brien: so this would be just to replace awnings, is that right? >> correct. vice president o'brien: and just help me with number three there, making findings including environmental

findings. >> i think that's just something that is very technical and just needs to be written into the legislation, but it's really just those few main fee waivers. vice president o'brien: the reason why i ask, you know, sometimes when you decide to replace something, if it was not to code for some reason or other, it's fine, as long as it stays there. but when you replace it, you have to bring it into code. although i can't imagine that many situations where an awning may be in violation of a code and it's allowed to stay as opposed to some other structure, but that's what i was just thinking about. >> i think that language is in there because it requires department planning review for the awnings. vice president o'brien: thank you. president adams: commissioner white. commissioner white: this is along the lines of outreach. do you know what the time frame is with the planning department in regards to if a small business is to start this process in april, would their

permit be issued in may? >> actually we're trying to get businesses to actually do this in may so, again, the permit, the fee -- the permits are issued like over the counter basically in one day and so it's not during april, it's not during the preceding months, but we're trying to outreach to merchants right now so that they can prepare and have sufficient funding to actually go forward with an awning replacement project. again, it's only for permits issued in may. vice president o'brien: those permits should be pretty quick because once you go to the planning desk at 1665 mission, you generally get it right there. president adams: it's an over the counter permit. vice president o'brien: o.t.c. president adams: any other commissioners? i just want to say this is great. in a lot of the neighborhoods that you described all over the city, and i'm very much involved in merchant organizations, this is a big cost for small business owners and the one thing i hear from

them is they don't do it because of the fees. sometimes it's overbearing. so i think this is very, very good legislation and especially with the electrical, waiving the electrical permits as well. with sfpd there is an effort to lighten up the merchant corridors to help deter crime, so this is very good, thank you. >> thank you. president adams: director dick-endrizzi. >> thank you. thank you, kris. we extend our appreciation to supervisors carmen chu, again, to have something for the city to be offering as a robust offering for during small business month. what we'll do is we'll get from the planning department and d.b.i. just what is the process, so what is going to be required so that businesses know what they need to have prepared when they go up to the

counter to make sure that they are prepared and ready to enact on their permit and we'll provide that information for you. president adams: great. any other commission comments? ok, do we have public comment, do we have any public comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. vice president o'brien: i make a motion to approve this as is. >> second it. >> roll call, chris. >> commissioner o'brien made a motion to approve b.o.s. file 120188, seconded by commissioner dwight. on that motion, commissioner adams? president adams: yes. >> commissioner dooley. commissioner dooley: yes. >> commissioner dwight. commissioner dwight: yes. >> commissioner o'brien. vice president o'brien: yes. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena. commissioner ortiz-cargagena:

yes. >> commissioner yee riley? commissioner yee riley:. where he yes. >> that passes 7-0. president adams: great. >> commissioners we're going back to item number 5, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to board of supervisors onboard board file number 120083, planning code and zoning map, 9th street power retail special use district, 555 9th street. in your packets is your list of questions, some data for you, the legislative sponsor provided a list of square footage and then there is a description of the district, a map and picture just for any of you who need to become familiar with it. we have legislative digest and lastly we have the ordinance. supervisor kim's office was scheduled to present. they regret that they had a last-minute thing come up and

they're unable to be here. if you would like to move forward, they did advise me that there is a representative of the property owner here. i don't know if you would like to begin with a presentation from them or if you would like to take that during public comment? president adams: we can take it. >> ok. we have a representative, allen lowe. >> good evening, commission e-s allen lowe from the law firm of nixon and peabodyy, attorney for of the owners of 555 9th street. the prong is about 150 square foot retail center. it has tenants ranging from bed bath and beyond. nordstrom's rack, trader joes, peer one imports and a wells fargo a.t.m. as well as publico urban tacoria. they are formal retail tenants

who have been there over 10 years. it has produced many dollars in sales revenues and employs over 400 people. it has been existing as i said over 10 years, well before the formula retail legislation and well before the eastern districts. what this legislation is really intended to do is just ratify what currently exists. there is no proposed change in use. there is no proposed alteration to any aspect of the center. it's just to keep what currently exists at the site. there has been some concern that this is really designed to bring in a big box retail tenant. that's not the intention in conversations with supervisor kim's office, the project has agreed to cap the limitation that a tenant up to 75,000 square feet, which is the current size of bed bath and beyond would not require a conditional use permit, but

should a tenant exceed 75,000 square feet, that would trigger a conditional use permit which would require to come back before the planning commission to move into that center. but really it's intended to keep things the way they are and to allow the center to continue to exist with the current tenants and the size of the tenant space. there has been a halo effect of other small businesses in the area. puwlico urban tacoria has enjoyed the foot traffic and retail trade that comes to the center as well as neighboring businesses. i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have regarding the legislation and will be available for any questions. president adams: commissioner comments? commissioner dooley. commissioner dooley: when i was looking into this, researching it, i noticed that there is already a notice of special restrictions on the center that

says that a business has to be over 51,000 square feet minimum in order to sell the bulky retail. is that happening right now? >> it is. that is really intended to go after bed bath and beyond satisfies the bulky retail requirement. the purpose of that special restriction was to control the traffic count and the notice of special restrictions to have that bulky retail is satisfied by the tenant bed bath and beyond. nothing -- this legislation does not change that notice of special restrictions. that will still be a requirement. president adams: any other questions? are there any objections to this? >> have i some comments but i don't know if this is the

appropriate time to -- we ask questions and go into public comment. president adams: then we wrap up. >> so this legislation basically keeps everything the same except if they exceed 75,000 square feet, which is the current bed bath and beyond, then it triggers a c.e.u. >> correct. >> would this permit someone to come in and roll up some of these other retail spaces into a 75,000 square foot space? >> actually, that's a very good comment, commissioner dwight. that wasn't in the current draft of the legislation, but we can certainly include, for lack of a better term, an anti-roll-up clause. that's not the sbegs for, say, one tenant to roll up 10,000 square feet chunks to get up to within the 75,000. but that's an excellent comment and would be happy to work with the city attorney to address the anti-roll-up. commissioner dwight: i can see where you would want to

preserve the present layout and let's just say bed bath and beyond decided to move out and someone else wanted to move in, if you didn't, you would require that it gets subdivided. i think what you want to prevent is someone from saying, well, maybe nordstroms is going to move out. i'm going to go there and take that place and annex a bunch of other places. as long as i'm under 75,000 square feet, i'm going to be ok. we don't want to encourage this to become a two-retailer shopping center. i think it's important that there are a mix of different sized retailers. i'm quite familiar with this place. it's not far from where i live. i know it's providing lots of jobs and it's a very active retail center in actually an area where there is not a lot of retail like this. i think it's a valuable asset to the community. >> again, certainly we would be happy to work with the city attorney to address that because that is certainly not the intention is to have one

tenant roll up other spaces. commissioner dwight: ok. president adams: any other commissioner comments? seeing none, do we have public comment on this matter? ok, seeing none, any other comments? commissioner dooley: i do have some comments. i'm kind of wondering why this particular location needs this exemption from c.u.'s? i mean everything has gone in before and, you know, target is going in over on masonic and they don't have this exception. i just think the c.u. works -- the other thing i'm concerned about, i like shopping at that area, too, is the congestion is so horrifying in that parking area that personally i can hardly ever go there anymore with a car because it's so

congested already. i kind of feel like why not at least let the c.u. process go forward, just try to hopefully make if someone new comes in, they're not adding to the already out of control congestion that is that parking lot there. >> although i guess you could argue if one of these spaces were subdivided and create another multiple go to, there would have been even more people descending on the spot. there could be an uncontinued consequences. it is congested. commissioner dooley: i agree, i don't see why c.u.'s which work should not be applied. it's not like someone is going to a deny a c.u. for formula retail in there. i don't feel comfortable with creating a special zone. it's like then why not everybody who has a lot of formula retail have this zone for no c.u.'s. i mean, even a lot of small businesses here, they go

through the c.u. process, why not your tenants? >> you also can look at it this way, too, that target space on masonic and gerrie, that sat vacant when mervyn's went out for a long time. in the market, we're sitting with an empty tower records when who knows when we're going to get something in there. so sometimes it works the other way, too. that's what i worry about is what if bed bath, something would happen or nordstroms rack, we may be stuck there with vacant space for a long time. that helps no one else. commissioner dooley: do you think a c.u. process, to a fairly large company, will prevent them from going in? it seems like they have the resources to deal with it. >> i don't know, it's a two-way street in my opinion, that's all. i have seen too many big spaces sit vacant and one of the

reasons is the c.u. where -- that c.u. process. i'm dealing with it in the upper market area where the c.u. process killed a grocery store coming into the neighborhood when the majority of the neighbors wanted a grocery store up there. so it's a two-way street. president adams: commissioner dwight. commissioner dwight: what is the motivation for this presently? >> i wasn't sure if i could talk. to address commissioner dooley and commissioner dwight, the motivation is as the current formula retail applies as well as the eastern districts, none of the current uses can exist. and what this legislation really is to preserve the current use, the current square footage to allow the current retail tenants to remain in the center and if one should move out, what the current square footage and address the

anti-rollout in the next, we can address that without going through the c.u. process. we're not changing the use or changing any aspect of the center. commissioner dwight: so had is not officially grandfathered in any way, it's just simply operating in noncompliance? >> yes. president adams: commissioner riley. commissioner yee riley: yes, i think the c.u. process isn't going to be very time-consuming and costly that will prevent some small business from going in there. president adams: is or is not? commissioner yee riley: i'm asking the question. >> i don't know. commissioner dooley: how many small businesses are there? >> in the center, there is one tacoria. commissioner dwight: i get that you want to bring things into compliance. i mean it does team a little pe