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 perverse that here they are operating, we're taxing them, we're taking full advantage of the fact that they exist and yet we're sort of turning a blind aye to the fact that they shouldn't exist under regulations, so in some way, we almost feel -- i feel sort of

honor bound to ratify their existence rather than make them kind of operate under the constant threat of being kicked out. >> right, the thing is i don't want to -- when a lot of people go shopping, you know right now, i'm glad target is coming to the city because i have so many people that leave the city to go shopping at these places outside of san francisco. that's tax money leaving the city. >> absolutely. >> and that's one thing, small business and the big formula retails need to work, in my opinion, hand in hand because a lot of these formula retail places bring in the jobs like allen just managed about the ripple effect in that area. i do know there are smaller businesses, especially along 9th street that do benefit from people going into that center. >> the mean the reality is in this place, the likely outcomes

are that -- and the only real consolidation is here trader joe's and peer one are next to each other. if trader joe's said i want to take over peer one imports space and make it a 21,000 square foot space, would that even -- would that violate the rules currently? what is it? 75. >> it potentially could since -- oh, i'm sorry. am i still permitted? >> when you're engaged by somebody, you are. >> i'm sorry. it would potentially traininger the conditionle use permit simply because as existing, even if we were to say this is a lawfully nonconforming use, the combination of the two sites would trigger a conditional use permit requirement. but certainly we can address both an overall size limitation of 75,000 square feet plus a

combination of more than 10,000 square feet to address the roll-up or 5,000 square feet since we're all picking on chase bank tonight. >> we're not picking on chase bank. >> i'm just kidding, kidding. commissioner dooley: can i just ask, everything in there right now is nonconforming, i assume. >> correct. commissioner dooley: so from my understanding then are those businesses currently under threat to be removed? my impression from nonconforming in my area is that it's allowed until a new person comes in and then they have to apply for a c.u. because it's not a conforming space. >> commissioner dooley, i think it's fair to say that it's unclear whether the existing use is permitted. especially the eastern districts and the combination of the formula retail ordinance, it's unclear whether

that center can continue to exist and that was the purpose for the special use district legislation was just to ratify what exists there and to allow tenants to move in and out without an increase in the square footage. commissioner dooley: thanks. president adams: any other commissioner comments? >> steve, would that address your issue? as long as people can move -- i think by -- i mean to your point, by ratifying this use scenario that happened, however it happened, then you would provide for the free, the ability for someone to move out and someone else to move in without a bunch of undue permitting and what not or maybe even being blocked out somehow. it seems like it would make it more expedient for the case that you have indicated, if someone is out, we don't want it vacant.

if it gets tied up in unintentionally ill legality, that would prolong the process. >> correct, that's exactly what i was thinking. >> yeah, i kind of agree with that line of thinking as well. ok. president adams: any other comments? do we have a motion? >> i would move that we approve the modification -- the legislation so that this center can operate legally as it's presently laid out with the modification to prevent a roll-up of space as we have described earlier and i don't know how that would be drawn out particularly in the legislation, but if we can see that happen, then i would move that we approve this legislation. president adams: director dick-endrizzi? >> so i just want to be clear because mr. lowe had said it's

not currently in the current form of legislation, but willing to amend to make sure that any use size over 75,000 square foot would then trigger an additional use so to support that proposed amendment, if that is something in addition to the roll-up of what you just said. >> why don't i restate my motion. i move that we approve this legislation with the provision that there is a maximum size of 75,000 square feet and a cause to prevent the roll yupt of existing spaces into larger spaces. >> i second it. president adams: roll call. commissioner dooley: may i ask for one clarification. are you saying prevent the roll-up or it would trigger it? >> that's a good question out of my general knowledge base here. >> i think trigger. >> you want to trigger a review. for example, i can imagine some

cases where we wouldn't want 258 square feet to sit idle because no one wanted 258 square feet. if peer one said, well, i'll take that, maybe that's ok under a conditional use. so why don't i restate my proposal. >> vice president o'brien: you're doing a great job. >> third time is a charm. >> the rookie, commissioner dwight. do you want to restate it commissioner dwight: i will move that we approve this legislation with the 75,000 square foot cap and the provision that any situation that would cause the consolidation of any of these existing spaces would require conditional use. vice president o'brien: second. >> and just to confirm, nothing permitted over 75,000 square foot, but then consolidation of spaces under that threshold would be conditional use, correct?

i have that seconded -- commissioner dooley: may i ask for a clarification, just to be clear, because we had -- there was some discussion going on with the 75-foot threshold, anything over that would be conditional use. so i just -- but that's now how the motion is stated. so is that the intent of your motion? >> bigger than 75 but only under a c.u. i thought you did. commissioner dwight: actually i didn't state it that way. all of you in the world watching this, if anyone is out there watching this. >> they're watching. commissioner dwight: the fourth attempt by the rookie. so back to discussion briefly. so for you experts here, so basically what we need to do is approve this legislation and just make any changes to the site subject to conditional use. >> current stores, like nordstrom rack, someone moves

out of nordstrom rack or someone moves out of bed bath and beyond, they can go right into those spaces, as long as they're not expanding the current footprint is how i -- >> again, is it ok if i can try to explain again. >> i have a question for you, too. >> if it exceeds 75,000 square feet that, would trigger a conditional use permit. >> correct. >> if there was a combination of where a tenant would go beyond, say, 10,000 square feet , that would also trigger a conditional use permit or -- >> i guess the question i have is, would it address your purposes if the legislation allowed the site to exist as it is legally, so ratified that it is -- made it illegal -- a legal is setup presently and said that any change to that setup, meaning any ns