professor isobell sort of alluded to some of that. i have asked nate to see what supervisor campos' thoughts are on that to provide direction to make sure that he is the legislative sponsor to make sure we're following his legislative intent. but if it's still relatively broad these are things up for the commission's consideration. >> are there any other cities that have done --. >> no we're the first. cities like new york and seattle are interested in what we're doing to see if this is just another step to help doing some preservation for the small businesses. >> the way i see it there are four points, two of them, the first two are objective and two are subjective, correct? so objective, the first two will be the entry door and then the subjective element will be developed -- i'm just thinking

out loud -- developed by the commission such that there are standards for the selection process. is that your understanding of what we need to do? >> seems to me that the last two we are going to have to sort of say meets a certain number of them but i don't think realistically that many businesses can do all of those things in those last two bullets. they may be missing one element there and i don't think that should exclude them. they are all quite significant. so i think we have to decide whether if they meet one then that --. >> one of the two, or even in these two there's different elements so there's more than two. so i think we need to kind of think realistically woo a business would have been able to have done.

>> what will be helpful, now that we've had some discussion, is if you can start articulating some thoughts and put them in writing to me and over the next week and a half so perhaps, say, by february 3rd if you could get -- then i can combine them. yes. >> please finish. >> i was going to say combine them so at the next commission meeting -- earlier would be helpful, but at the next commission meeting combine it so that we can have again more information to look at for you to work with. >> what i was going to ask is the task is to take the two last bullet points and to kind of come up with standards, not so much which would be governing, but kind of a list of points and elements we would take into account to qualify a

business. correct? >> correct. >> thank you. >> you want to take public comment on item no. 4? do we have any members of the public who would like to make a comment on item no. 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. director's report. >> so mr. president i did schedule point of information items 8 and 9 just to ensure that due to dan sider's schedule to make sure that he could be here in time. so if we could move through the ayen today as it's ordered or if --. >> well since mr. sider is here, i would like to make a motion that we move items 8 and 9 ahead of 5, 6 and 7 if

everybody is in agreement to that. >> second. >> all in favor? >> all right. so i shall call item no. 8. item no. 8 is discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the planning commission on the current small business priority process pilot program to a proposed community business priority program. >> welcome, mr. sider. you've got the beard going too. >> my winter coat. >> sorry, most of us have coughs up here too. >> commissioners, good afternoon. thank you for having me here in afternoon. it's great to be back in front of you all again. so today i'm here to talk about something that i think is very near and dear to this commission, certainly a number of you worked on closely just a couple of years ago.

so in 2013 the beginning of 2013, members of this commission, along with members of the planning commission and our respective staffs held a series of conversations that were really designed to take a look at the planning process as it relates to small businesses and see what we could do to speed things along to get rid of unnecessary process. what we wound up with is the acronym that i think a number of us now know well at the bottom of this slide, the sb4p, small business priority process pilot program. it's a bit of a mouthful, but it's a program that we all developed a level of consensus around and were able to use it to help a number of small businesses through our planning process.

skipping ahead here a bit too quickly. commissioners, what the sb4p does, it does two main things. firstly it guarantees the planning commission hearing within 90 days of the date of application. typically that's 120 days, that's our target, 120 days. i would level with you, commissioners, that today given our current application volumes it's a challenge, it's a real struggle to meet that 120 days. so the sb4p guarantees a 90 day hearing and it also guarantees placement on the planning commission's consent calendar. if you are a small business owner a sb4p placement is you come in at noon and walk out an hour later with an anoofl in your hand. how have we done this? we've done it by cutting red tape i

think is the quick answer. we have cut away the mountains of paperwork that i think all city departments are wont to generate. because we have removed that process, that extra burden, we are naturally able to process sb4p applications much more rapidly and very importantly, that increase in speed with respect to the sb4p applications does not slow down our non-sb4p applications so it's nonzero sum. the fact of the matter, commissioners, is that our practice, the planning department's practice of preparing these massive case summaries, these massive case motions for each and every planning department -- planning commission item and certainly the smaller and more conventional small business items is just a practice that doesn't lend any value to the process.

now, to that point and you may have seen this example on the next slide before but i like it and i'm going to show it to you one more time. on your left-hand side we have a 17-page motion approving a 900 square foot restaurant expansion and on the right we have the 10 page motion for at&t park. the point is of course that there is no intrinsic value to lengthy approval documents. now owing to that presumption our sb4p projects are approved using a two-page project summary and motion which you see on the right-hand side of the screen, rather than the 20 or 30 or sometimes 40-page approval document. that's incredibly time saving for us and that time saving will be passed along to the applicant. that's current policy. i'm here today for a few reasons.

no. 1 is because the sb4p is a pilot program, that's one of the four p's, it will expire because it has a sunset date built in. no. 2, we are seeing even greater planning department backlogs compared to where we were a couple years ago when sb4p came online. lastly, we have had a lot of experience using the program over the last couple years and we think it's time to take that experience and put it to use. in order to frame the changes i'd like to show you the existing criteria a project has to meet before enrolling in the sb4p this is just a snapshot of the application's eligibility criteria. the point is there's a lot of them. and i think that what we need to communicate clearly is that the program from department land if you will, from the planning department's

perspective, the program has been very successful but we haven't allowed it to flourish because the criteria are so strong so stringent, the program hasn't flourished. we have had an impedence, if you will, in the enrollment. so we are recommending a package of changes primarily to these eligibility standards and it's our hope that these changes will re-invigorate the sb4p what you can see on the screen now, i hope it's not too small in the letters in front of you, is the sort of existing criteria, a very high level of review in english rather than bureaucrat-eze what the limits are, i guess the bar of entry is to participate in the program. going to advance the slide now and what you'll see on this next slide is a series of red lines, strike-throughs and underlines that indicate the major changes that we're going to be proposing.

i can see it's hardly legible on the screen, i hope you got our handout from last week. if you didn't i have copies up here. these spell out exactly what we're going to be suggesting as proposed modifications. so what i'd like to do is just quickly run through the salient changes here because this is sort of meat and potatoes of what the proposal is from the planning department right now. with respect to the first criteria, in this case what makes good policy case in certain geographies in san francisco also makes sense elsewhere. so rather than limiting the program as it is now to just our neighborhood commercial districts and just our invest in neighborhoods corridors, we are proposing to roll this out more broadly. we are proposing this apply city-wide. the second change, no. 2,, is

one this commission has been very involved with over the past years, i suppose at this point. we have had a very robust dialogue about formula retail and now new legislation has come online that's effective today and we are proposing in the sb4p to bring on board small formula retailers. these are the formula retailers with fewer than 20 establishments. we're also proposing to bring on board certain changes of use between one formula retail operator and others and lastly formula retail operators that are financial services, limit edify napx services or personal services when they don't occupy space at the ground level. that final category would be specific land uses not at the ground level regardless of the number of establishments. i am joined by commissioner burns, to your right,

commissioners, kanisha with our staff and she is our retail expert, she is imnepbltly qualified to answer your questions. skipping ahead to no. 3, we have refocused the criterion relating to large footprint businesses and we are looking away from the raw size of individual stores and really concentrating on what matters to the planning department from a policy perspective which is the consolidation of storefronts, losing multiple storefronts for single entities that occupy both, or more than both. no. 5, this relates to parking. and our approach here is to be a little less punitive in the process. previously any business that provided off street non-residential parking could not participate in the program. we are suggesting

that those applications that propose new off street non-residential parking not be allowed to participate, but those that already have it are not automatically disqualified. we're getting to the end here. no. 8, and this is an interesting one, previously restaurants could only serve beer and wine under the sbf4. if you sought a abc license to serve hard alcohol you could not participate. what we're talking about is changing that requirement in order to really focus in on the nighttime entertainment and the bar uses, those use that is we see having a real potential for negative externalities and allowing bona fide restaurants that choose to serve hard liquor to the participate in the program. and no. 9, lastly, we have added in three more out of the ordinary uses uses we think

just because of their nature should probably not be handled under the sb4p drive up facilities, fringe financial services and xwroupbd floor office uses that are closed to the public. now, commissioners, because of the potentially widening scope here we are proposing that the sb4p be retitled and yes of course there is a new acronym to come with it, the community business priority processing program, slightly less wordy, the sb3p >> star wars acronym. >> despite all of this, despite all these proposed changes, there's a lot of the program that remains intact, remains just as it has been. i want to focus on that for a second because we shouldn't lose track of that. the sb4p

said the applicant conduct a preapplication meeting with their neighbors. that worked and we have retained it. in a lot of these cases there's an extra pre-application meeting thrown in just to participate and we think that's a good thing. the same neighborhood notice that applied to sb4p previously and applies to every conditional ai plies here. the planning department must find the application is necessary or desirable. that doesn't change. and lastly the commission rule, the planning commission rule that any consent calendar item upon request by a member of the public or a commissioner automatically come off and automatically be put on the regular calendar. that rule is left unchanged as well. this last item is one of two checks on the program that i want to wrap up with. just in

case we do see a cd3b application that is suggestive of a more exhaustive approval document, we beefed up the checks and balances in the program. in addition to what we just talked about, we are proposing that the director of planning, the president of the planning commission and the vice president of the planning commission all have the ability at any point in the process to disqualify a project from the cd3b owing to their feeling it would be objectionable. so that's an important check that i want you to all, i suggest we all keep in mind as we contemplate these proposed changes. commissioners, that's all i've got. thank you for being so generous with your time. i do appreciate it i'm happy to answer any questions, i'm very happy to hear your thoughts.

kanisha is as all. >> commissioner dooley. >> thanks, guys, i think you've done a great job. i think it will be really helpful. i have to say i still have my reservations on the one item which is restaurants with liquor permits just because the experience i have seen is that there can be an intensification of use with full bar versus beer and wine. that would just really my only comment. >> despite your love of bourbon and branch. >> despite that. but that's my only comment is that clearly wine and beer in a restaurant implies that it's primarily a restaurant, whereas we see a lot of folks these days saying, you know, claiming to be a restaurant when actually their primary source of income is the bar section. so that would be my only one i would just not to

have it in this program is restaurants with full bars, maybe not that they serve liquor, but that they have a full bar rather than table service with their food. >> yeah, i think some accommodation for liquor should be made. we've got, we have some cultural issues like, you know, if you want to go to a restaurant where hard liquor is iman important component to, you know, margaritas, we have wine margaritas but not alcohol margaritas. >> a full bar almost separate from the restaurant. if we can just parse that a little bit, i think that would be a --.

>> also a lot of restaurants that don't have full bars are serving after dinner drinks that would not qualify as wine and beer. aperitifs. >> ortiz-cartagena. >> i have a question regarding empowering the directors of planning to disqualify. >> c3pio >> thank you for having that question, it's a good one. the thinking behind it is these changes would represent a broadening of the program. i don't want to mischaracterize it, it is a significant broadening. we think it's a great program bus we didn't have a dhoopbs see it flourish because the criteria were so restrictive. we think the way

we're broadening it is the right thing to do but we acknowledge the possibility there will be a particular use in a particular context that shouldn't be handled this way so we want to provide the city a way to deal with that. there was arrived at i think the most simple and best way. to the second part of your question, there are no criteria. i think the draft language says in their sole opinion the matter would be objectionable or controversial. they do enjoy a great deal of discretion. but if you're not happy with that language we're happy to pass it along. >> that's generally the way it is anyway, planning commission, they will decide on their own discretion collectively whether they think something is or not. >> correct. >> just to be clear, this doesn't mean that the item, the application would just not be

eligible for the expedited, they would have to go through the full conditional use process. right? >> uh-huh. >> so they would have to have the hearing. the criteria is probably the guess is this is an item that will be called off the agenda by the public ear something, but it merits some sort of circumstances that it needs to go through the full conditional use process. just because they don't qualify for the cb3p doesn't mean they can't go through the full conditional use process. >> that's a very good point. if i can just add to it one example might be, for example, a restaurant in north beach with a history of violations with respect to alcohol coming in and seeking to do the right thing even though that might otherwise be a application that could be handled under the cb3p if there was a history of code violations, if there was a

history of complaints or concern from the neighborhood i can imagine one of the three parties there, especially if you are concerned having that not be enrolled in the program. >> commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> i see highly objectionable, so i think the standard of exercising the discretion should be when there is a highly objectionable -- is that your understanding? highly objectionable. >> commissioner, you are right, that is the language. again, just in the interest of transparency while you are absolutely correct what might be highly objectionable to me polite not be the same thing that the commission president considers to be highly objectionable. >> sure. >> but you just mentioned that if it could be triggered to the tossed out of this back to regular cu based on -- how does that work if one neighbor decides they don't like it, is

that enough to kick it out? >> the current commission rules, pre-sb4p right now and under the cb3p could be unchanged. any item on the calendar if there's any concern from the commission or the public automatically comes off the calendar for a full discussion and so forth. >> i have one more a little bit off question, but i feel like a lot of people didn't know about the earlier program so i'm hoping as this rolls out there could be some kind of outreach to let more people know that they might be eligible for these programs. i think that would be really helpful. >> great comment, thank you. if i can just add to that, we did receive a fair amount of interest in the last program. i don't have the numbers with me, i'm sorry, of folks that did want to participate and came close to but they were

outside of the neighborhood area, for example, or they wanted to serve alcohol. but i think you are right, we need to reach out to the business community and let them know about this. >> is this primarily new business? >> it's a range. our experience so half is about half and half but it's certainly open to anyone. >> it's part of your information package when you are going in to find out about new business that this is available to you. >> commissioner yee riley. >> i want to know if you have an outreach plan for this new program. >> we don't have a plan yet because it's just a proposal but i think what i'm hearing today is we will. we will develop one, we have an in house information team, if you will, that we're going to put to use. once we are getting toward approval of this, should that be the planning commission's desire, we will absolutely do that. >> and when would planning

hear this? >> the thursday, the intent, president adams, is to hear this not this thursday, not next thursday but the following thursday. i'm not sure of the date offhand. the 12th, maybe? >> do you want to take public -- any more questions before we take public comment? do we have any members of the public who would like to make a comment on item no. 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to approve? >> i move. >> so, commissioners, i know that commissioner dooley had made a comment. so if we take a motion right now to approve it as is and i can add that some commissioners had some concerns around the alcohol or i don't know if you want to take a separate motion to make a specific direction for consideration around that end or just --. >> does commissioner dooley

want to propose the motion? >> sure. i would like to propose that we approve this new legislation with one suggestion, which would be to allow restaurants which serve liquor but do not have a full bar to be eligible for this program. >> i'm sorry, before we finalize, i had -- something just popped in my head. if there's a business that didn't qualify under sb4p because the criteria with regard to the district did not -- and then cb3p passes, do they have the option -- at some point when it sunsets and the new one starts that could be a business that could benefit by switching over. although i had to go back and see because i didn't qualify under the old program.

does that make sense? will there be any option for businesses if they don't qualify now? >> commissioner, that makes a great deal of sense. currently it's one we haven't thought about. the one mechanical thing that might play in is presume a cu filed under the old rules wouldn't have had it done up front. but let us do some thinking on that. >> financially it could be six months for small businesses. >> can you withdraw a cu >> you can. you have to pay to withdraw and refile. you have to consider how would someone get off the cu track which they've been channeled on to because they didn't qualify can they rechannel themselves if they make the cost benefit analysis that canceling and reapplying made sense.

>> it seems like a lot of brain damage. the goal of the policy is to encourage small business and help them out. i'm sure we can find a way to help them out if they are willing to go out and fill out the application, even though it might be pre-application. >> do you want to read back the motion? >> the motion that's on the, the motion that's before the commission -- we got a second, commissioner --. >> no, i don't think we seconded it. >> waiting for you to read it. >> the motion commissioner dooley has made is to recommend to the planning department the proposed cb3p to recommend as proposed with one modification for consideration and that is to allow only restaurants the full liquor license if they do not include a bar is kind of how i --. >> yeah, perhaps we can add the williams suggestion that -- and also to consider

accommodating businesses that previously were rejected from the prior program and are now in the cu process to possibly reapply under the new program. >> right. >> switch tracks, basically. >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but president adams, can i ask a clarifying question? >> yes. >> the motion on the floor, the word bar, does that refer to the physical bar or a liquor license that allows for the sale of hard liquor? >> no, a physical bar. >> thank you. >> so i think per your intent commissioner dooley, that restaurants who are opening a restaurant that has a bar and a restaurant would not be eligible for the cb3p >> how about a liquor cart? >> yes. >> a hard liquor cart. >> i've actually seen that. >> then allowing, then making recommendation to