Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  October 19, 2018 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT

9:00 pm
>> they said that folks have the option of paying their in lieu fee before the december 7th deadline. is that ok? >> the december 7 deadline applies only to projects that are using the on-site mac right or the off-site -- on-site rate and the off-site rate. if you want to go from the entitled option to the fee, you have to come back to the planning commission for another approval or just come back for that review to modify your method of a compliance. >> president hillis: -- >> so if the approval that a developer would seek would be only to that portion, is it possible, of some of the
9:01 pm
commenters said during public comment that folks would come back and say, for example,, seek to modify the project and get the density bonus, for example? >> yes. the project may come back and seek modifications. these modifications can be sought in a number of ways. we have projects that come and try to use the state density bonus and others may have additional density that they would like to incorporate that the zoning code would allow as a right to. some projects may be modified in their massing or they may make changes to the project after approval. on a project by project basis we would evaluate if that was substantial enough either to trigger a new project entitlement or a new project application or substantial enough to require a new commitment. that does require that component , it does have to come
9:02 pm
back to the commission for review. that is an established policy since 2013. >> with these projects have to, somehow get calendar before december 7th? >> probably. >> otherwise, say someone wanted to pay the in lieu fee regardless of the deadline, wanted to pay the fee rather than build the units on sight and they came to us after december 7th, what they have to pay higher in lieu fee you squeeze. >> that is a good question. >> the december 7th expiration date is very specific to the on-site right map -- rate but we will double, that. >> i'm just trying to get to the question of whether it does make these units unfeasible. >> the december 7th date only applies to the on and off sight
9:03 pm
as carly was describing. if a project had reached the expiration, i believe we can confirm with the city attorney, but they would lose that grandfathered rate. they will be switching to the fee and switching to the fee at the 30 or 33% and still have to come back to the planning commission. >> ok. >> i'm sorry. i wasn't done. just one other comment. i would like to think about, i am not feeling this. i think that, in particular, there is one project that i voted against just two weeks ago that is on this list and i am not feeling like helping it along. i would like to hear what other commissioners have to say about that. >> following up on that fee question. i think there was a project here
9:04 pm
where, may be i am mistaken, where the on-site mac was grandfathered -- where the on-site was grandfathered by the fee wasn't. can you explain that we if you're not entitled by december 7th, you don't meet the 30 month deadline, you could still do the fee. >> this was eight '07 -- 807 franklin where we were removed removing the building to fulton street. the reason why we came to the commission with the fee was because we weren't clear that we were going to be able to get the project figure it out with the on-site mac option for a site permit issuance by december 7th . so coming forward with the fee to the commission said that we lock in our ability to do the lower fee under proxy and now, just today, we have been talking about how we are going to work to put the units on site, but again, dependent on this
9:05 pm
legislation passing so that the grandfathering for the on-site mac would allow you -- because we will not have the site permit likely before then. >> right. thank you. i remembered that and i appreciate you reminding us. i think, you know, some of the comments were muddling this issue a bit. we are not saying go back and switch the date where you had to apply for the environmental application to get grand parented and. that is still three years ago. it was in 2015 and sometimes in 2014 that you had to apply for the e.a. we are only talking about projects who applied for the e.a. back in 2015 and 2014 and sometimes earlier than that. where the role then changed. the inclusionary was increased. but we grandfathered those projects in. all we are saying is some of
9:06 pm
those projects weren't approved by this commission until years after they applied for their e.a. for many reasons, probably projects that were scrambling to figure out how to make them feasible on the probably was environmental review issues for some of these projects we have heard as recently as a month ago or two weeks ago. some of them only a handful that we have not even heard and may be we hear them and may be we don't. it is a pretty small subset of projects. this projects that have been in the works for years as the rules changed. all we are saying is we want to give them more time to get fully approved and built. i think that makes sound policy sense. especially because there was a broad diversity of when these projects were actually approved by the commission. some took years beyond their dates and others were approved soon thereafter from the 2015 date. i'm sure some of them were already built or under
9:07 pm
construction. but i think the mayor makes total sense in this policy and many times, it is our problem. we are to blame for delaying these are continuing them and asking for changes. the project sponsor may be indeed to blame for it and there may be negotiations on going with the but we are not really changing the line. we are saying, get your project built in a respectable and reasonable amount of time. it is still sunset. it just gives him some extra time to sunset. i think this makes total sense and i am extremely supportive. did you want to add? >> just a quick point of clarification. i may have misspoke a little earlier. when you have the fee rates that are grandfathered, that is what expires on december 7th. , i'm sorry, the on-site rates but the fee rates do not -- you have those grandfathered fee rates, whether it is 20, 27.5 or
9:08 pm
30%. if you are going to switch and you are a grandfather project, after december 7th, provided the project is not substantially change or be considered a new project then you would be able to utilize your grandfathered fee rate. >> even if you are not, even if you don't have all the approvals by december 7th? >> correct. >> would you have had to have your project approved already with the fee instead of on-site? >> he would have to come back to the commission to switch to the fee. december 7th is preserving your on-site and your off-site rates. >> you have to come back by december 7th to switch to the fee. >> you can come back after december 7th to switch to the fee. >> all right. that is pretty crucial to me. so these projects could still pencil out if they paid to the in lieu fee into the affordable housing fund after december 7th is what you are saying?
9:09 pm
>> it depends project by project >> but they would still have to come back. >> they would have to come back and seek the entitlement. >> i'm sorry. i just have one other question. which was brought up by the public which was about community benefits agreements. so it's a project, whatever, could they, if they have their environmental approved, what they have to have come back? is it feasible that they could come back and then lower their affordability rate by getting the density bonus? >> you are asking if a grandfather project could come back as a density bonus project? i think they could come back with a modified project. on a project by project basis would have to evaluate whether we would consider that a new project or a modification to the existing project. and if there were substantial community benefits that had been
9:10 pm
negotiated on that project, the use of the state density bonus does not necessarily negate the community benefits. i think that would be up on the project sponsor to continue to work with the community to make sure even if that project was modified that the community benefits that were negotiated would be retained. so from a technical perspective, it could be modified but that does not necessarily nullify the rest of the deal outright. >> including the environmental -- >> he asked. >> thank you. >> if i may, the rule that we have always used on sizes of projects is if the project is five% greater or ten% less than the what the commission approved , we would bring it back to you. that is a kind of role we have always used. the community benefit agreement as a private agreement. we can't be part of it. that would have to be separately negotiated but that is the general rule of thumb that we have always used.
9:11 pm
>> commissioner moore? >> in principle, the idea of clarifying the process is very important and i think very timely. there are a couple of lingering questions and those deal with the fact that what we are doing here is approving projects for policy. this principle to get housing built. we do supports on-site affordable and we do discourage fee buyouts. we are more interested in having actual b.m.r. be built at the time when projects are realized. what i feel here is that i am looking at specific projects rather than at behavior behind projects. that is my issue. what i want to avoid is that we are supporting potential speculation by people not
9:12 pm
realizing the projects. i hear mr morris and i hear you all. with projects where we know that they are in the process of being diligent. but looking at the list of 32 other projects, as a look at the names and addresses, i do not know exactly what all projects are anymore. there are so many of them and we are repeating policies rather than particular projects. and i am wondering, by extending the extension without further detail about what are the actions that the projects have undertaken in the time since they were approved, that we discern between projects actually being pursued rather than people having them out there and speculating. that is my biggest question here i am very, very impressed by the amount of data that is being
9:13 pm
provided, except the detail of what is actually happening behind the scenes that have not been given to me. i am in support, yet there are missing pieces of information that i would like to hear from the department and from everybody else involved. when it comes to projects, for example, one project was approved in may of 2016 and were basically had a 30 month expiration on november 12th, 2018. it is the only one that will be expiring this year. the other ones come online in march and may of 2019. that many are projects which were recently approved. they are not really on the hot seat yet. i would rather see those projects go forward with some pressure on them instead of adding an additional 30 months unilaterally for all of them. we have many projects in the past few weeks. they have all been positively
9:14 pm
supported and instead of having -- they will get an extra extension beyond what they would need to do anyway. >> i want to clarify. not everyone gets 30 months. may be click staff could clarify you only get 30 months from when it's approved. those projects that were approved two years ago and haven't done anything, they do not have much time to finish. they do not get a new 30 months. i think there is still that use it or lose it pressure but 30 months from approval from this body, some projects which we approved a week ago or two months ago, others which we approved two years ago. there are 30 month clock started running two years ago. >> for example, the project i am referring to happens to be 90,116th street 21,217th street got its approval in may 20 may 12th, 2016 and would be expiring a month from now. >> that is right. >> they have 30 months from the time we approved them to build
9:15 pm
it. if they don't, probably unlikely they will. they would lose it. >> that is exactly right. you are exactly right. they will have 30 months from the date of entitlement. it is a special case. they are currently under -- they have exhausted their appeals. they are currently under -- >> under litigation. >> thank you. they are under litigation. >> otherwise they would actually -- their deadline is november 12 th. this legislation takes 30 months from entitlement. the current code, the deadline was december for all projects no matter when they were approved. >> you remember what we went through on 430 main, there was a host of issues that the community went through with the developer prior to us getting involved. there was a review that took a
9:16 pm
long time from the time it applied to its environmental review to the time it approved this commission. they had 30 months from the date it was approved. i think it's fair to those projects. you're basically giving everyone the same amount of time from approval to get through this process. >> just to clarify, on that project, if this particular project would have another six months beyond november 12th. >> yes, because there is a lawsuit. if they did not have a lawsuit, november 12th would be their deadline. >> december 7th would be their deadline. >> you can kind of notice at the top of the list that we have handed out there is a number of projects that were entitled a long time ago. even this legislation won't help them. they are subject to december 7 th and they have to give their permit. to your point, it is 30 months from the date of entitlement. if you are entitled to years ago
9:17 pm
, you are working with six months to get your sight -- site permit. that is consistent with the three months deadline that we have established for projects that have submitted complete proposals. we are applying this 30 month deadline to all of the new projects. and commissioner moore, i do have extra -- we have given you a more simplified list because there is so much data to digest. i'd be happy to share that with you right now or off-line. >> to be clear, with the unit -- is a universe of projects that would apply and not growing, it has been the same since 2015. it is these projects that we have. we are not adding more projects that could take advantage of a ground parented closure inclusionary rate. it is the same projects we have always been talking about. >> the only question i would ask , i appreciate the explanation and it has started to make more sense. the one thing i would like to ask as we find additional tools to discourage speculation
9:18 pm
because across the world, speculation is at the root of all the core problems we are encountering. while i believe that the 30 months may be a realistic way of , giving what it takes in san francisco, i would still think that that needs to be a message about speculation. >> did you have any more comments, please. >> i would like to make a motion to approve item number 6. >> second. >> commissioner mel gar? >> ok. thank you staff for the nuances and for the further clarification. so before i vote, i would like the record to reflect that my vote, if it goes on to the next body for review that my vote is, in no way, supporting the extension of the project that i
9:19 pm
voted against last week, which was at 2918 mission. >> jonas. >> seeing no further comments, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this planning code amendment. on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously. item seven, case number 2018-pca , the mission alcoholic beverage special use district and mission street commercial transit district. this is a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners diego sanchez from department staff. i am joined by individuals from supervisor ronan's office, oewd and the planning department.
9:20 pm
we will be presenting to you an update to the mission action plan 2020. this was before you in 2017. we will also present a set of amendments to the mission alcoholic amendments engine the mission street and c.t. zoning controls. without further delay, i will call up claudia and she can present on the 2020 update. >> good afternoon, commissioners you may recall through the 2020 process we developed solutions in the categories from tenant protections to economic development to meet the target objectives and goals of the plan by the time you endorse the plan , we had begun implementing strategies identified in the plan, particularly the most tenant just urgent protection programs. the legislation in front of you is one of the implementation actions that has come out of the plan. the 2020 status report included as an attachment to a case report to this legislation
9:21 pm
includes an update on the trends and where we are with the strategies and targets. as of today, 36 at the original 51 strategies are underway or complete. an additional 15 were added to the work plan and years 2017 and 2018. all of which are complete or underway. in addition to the action in front of you today, you have acted on three legislative actions over the past year related to p.d.r. and small business protection. as well as related interim controls in the special use district. some key highlights from the report are as follows. cohen new data indicates that evictions are decreasing along with reported buyouts. demographic data indicates that the disgrace -- decrease of the latino population is slowing. as commissioner richards mentioned last week, while the trends are encouraging, remains to be seen whether a reversal as possible. latinos used to make up 50% of the population.
9:22 pm
we still need data on illegal evictions which is difficult to get. we want to see the decrease in legal evictions and unlawful informal evictions as well as harassment. we plan to reach out on organizations on the ground to see if there's a way to report on that. data on commercial trends is also needed and we hope the focus makes will be more robust in this area so we can begin to document the impact of the legislative actions you've taken today related to commercial uses and see what impacts are having our own -- are on the ground. another key trend is that houses and the median income arrange continue to decline year after year. we need to discuss additional strategies to retain households. report reported on the status of the targets. the p.d.r. target has yet to be evaluated, just in the time it takes to build new projects. the housing production project
9:23 pm
-- protection is at -- our next steps include follow-up on strategies yet to be implemented revise the targets that were met this year so we can set new targets for the next year and to determine additional priorities and strategies for 2019 so we can continue to retain our low to moderate income households as well as businesses, artists and community organizations that continue to face displacement pressures. with those highlights i will return it back to diego for the specific legislative action that is in front of you today. >> thank you. i would like to provide amy from the legislative sponsor's office with time to present the ordinance. >> thank you. welcome. >> thank you for hearing this item today. this truly is an outgrowth of the map 2020 program which has
9:24 pm
been really impressive of a collaboration between city staff and community organizations. so this is one result of it. as claudia described, there are a lot more elements than this. the planning code amendment before you today is sponsored by supervisor ronan and affects a portion of the mission, alcohol and beverage fud and the mission and c.d. they are intended to encourage small retail arts, nonprofits, manufacturing businesses in the mission to thrive and grow and further strengthening the protections for legacy businesses and reduce pressure on the mall and pop businesses from competing uses and large scale developed -- large-scale development. [please stand by]
9:25 pm
9:26 pm
>> -- in making this work, and making sure that we're covering our bases as we go forward, and then, of course, the community organizations that spend so much time individually and as organizations to really keep the heart of the mission beating. so what -- what we have here before you is specifically for the mission street n.c.t., we have a change to promote small commercial spaces in new developments, limit mergers of storefronts in existing buildings, add c.u. requirements for new businesses after displacement of legacy businesses, open up opportunities for light manufacturing on the side streets, and nonmission street
9:27 pm
facing spaces. open up opportunities for social service and nonprofit on the third story and above for those buildings that go up that high, and ensuring a commercial mix by limiting the future growth of restaurants and bars. and then, within a portion of the mission, alcohol and beverage s.u.v. which extends up into the bernal portion of mission, but for these purposes, we are creating a southern boundary to that at chavez. we will be adding a conditional use process for full service restaurants and then disallowing this specific a.b.c. type 75 liquor license which allows a certain kind of p.d.r. use to be an an entree for a full liquor license and sort of sidestep
9:28 pm
what the planning commission s.u.d. was supposed to do. and establishing guidelines for a future c.u., so hopefully make your job clearer, and in that emphasizing the goals and purpose of map 2020, and then, including the look backs at two and five years so we can make adjustments in response to changes in the market and also changes in the community, and that's what i have for you today. and i'm here for questions, but these folks have a lot more information. >> president hillis: thank you. >> so thanks. >> commissioners, the department supports the ordinance, the amendments to the mission alcoholic beverage s.u.d. align with its original intentions, which are to provide additional scrutiny to new alcohol dispensing uses within the mission. the amendment's mission neighborhood commercial transit
9:29 pm
district seek to balance the character of the neighborhood and retail corridor character while allowing the entry of new uses and users. this is done through proposed provisions, maintaining or providing small storefronts while also allowing new uses into the corridor. the department is proposing one small minor amendment and that is to allow nonretail professional services. this is being proposed to allow certain businesses in approximate the corridor that can provide a nonprofit status and also provide more employees to stoke demand for the restaurants or the other retail uses at the ground floor on mission street. this concludes my presentation, and we are available for questions. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, mr. sanchez. miss florez, miss banner, let's open this up for public comment if there is any.
9:30 pm
mr. hernandez. >> buenas tardes. try to cool down, take a deep breath for a minute. today, i want to undress this issue, and i want to talk about liquor stores. i grew up in the mission neighborhood, and i remember growing up as a kid, you can get schiltz malt liquor, i know it. i drank it. in 1994, as part of my recovery, i got together with a group of people to address the issue of alcohol in my neighborhood, and i was blessed at that time to know a woman who was working at ucsf, and i reached out to her,
9:31 pm
and she helped me. and actually ucsf took on this project and helped us conduct a study. in that study that was conducted, we found that the mission district in terms of a map has the most alcohol outlets in a neighborhood than any other neighborhood in san francisco. so with that study when it was finally completed, one of the recommendations that we did was to go meet at that time with the mayor, the board of supervisors, people from the planning department, a.b.c. we took nine months visiting all our elected representatives and commissions and boards and shared the study with them. from that, the great outcome of that was there was a moratorium on anymore liquor licenses being issued in our neighborhood. unfortunately, there has been a
9:32 pm
number of exemptions that have been allowed and we've been fighting them. and you know what we hear? well, it's just one more, roberto. well, you know, the mission bowling club got an exemption, and they got to serve alcohol, you know, and they have the audacity to say, well, it's not that people of color who come in here, it's people of money who are going to come in here. that was an insult, you know what i'm talking about? in fact, i went there one day to go play bowling with a bunch of white people, friends of mine. the rooftop got an exemption, and i can go on and on and on how many exemptions -- this has got to stop. why put a moratorium if you're not going to respect it? today i'm asking you to support what is being presented today and understand that we're done a lot of work, you know? alcohol and drugs is a big huge
9:33 pm
problem in our barrio, in our community, and there's a lot of us who are addressing that and trying to heal our community, to please, please be a part of the healing process for our people in our community. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any additional public comment? >> my name is antonio. i wanted to say i've been making my own liqueurs including vodka and absinthe from time to time. the mission wouldn't be without the brewing community that's there. it's given so much life to many
9:34 pm
of us. the craft brewing scene in the u.s. has really become a world of its own in the last 15 years, and i couldn't imagine anything greater outside of the other ethnic and botanical things, but it's given this community something to look at, and i would never take that away from the mission. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon again, president hillis and commissioners. so i want to join others in thanking this group from the city working hard, especially diego for his time working diligently on this legislation, and claudia for seeing this process through for so long. and deanna has certainly been shepherding these new processes forward for a long time, which
9:35 pm
are new, big and important step we feel for our corridors. and lastly and certainly not least, the supervisor's office and amy binart and looking at what are we going to need? i thank the commission for looking at some of the things that we're needing. we're struggling to find what are the mechanisms to keep up with the displacement of our mom and pop businesses and this is sort of new ground for everyone, and we're sort of chasing after it and finding creative solutions, and i think this is overall very healthy step to stablizing, number one, and also offering a lot more opportunity, specifically, certain things that may seem minor, like certain what are the sizes of the spaces on mission street, but you look at other corridors
9:36 pm
like 24th, and you see that the size of their spaces has been a part of their success, so we have to start modelling, while they may seem mine i don't remember, they don't end up being minor. i've spent a lot of time with the owners of these businesses, ticking off what they need. we ask these businesses, what is your list of challenges, and that's been helpful in developing these kind of protocols. i think a shift that diego mentioned that will provide more opportunity for nonprofits on the street will be a very healthy shift so that we can have all sorts of nonprofit use in the space. it doesn't have to be something very successful like, say a home previously where they were really sort of a producer, a trade shop. that's what the zoning is, right, to have such a project on the street. we think that'll be useful to
9:37 pm
keeping our balance, who is our food service, restaurants, bars, coffee shops, which we're certainly getting many, many applications. important to keep what is the potential balance mix, and we would like to keep an eye on other creative solutions for having an accessory restaurant. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm very happy to support this legislation. it does indeed an incredible balancing act of great turmoil, and i hand it to diego and amy and everybody else to take this on head on and deal with it
9:38 pm
right now. we have several projects, i don't want to target projects here, that definitely raised a few questions a few weeks ago. those projects got continued, but i think the neighborhood is under constant threat of being undermined by projects too large or too similar than what is already there, with the thing that mr. hernandez described as a major, major threat to the neighborhood over many years he has witnessed and participated in it. so i'm in full support and move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore: that included modifications made by the department. >> i do want to make one more comment. the legislative sponsor has already notified that they're seeking a grandfather clause for projects seeking to merge larger than 1500 square feet. th in the proposal, that would not be allowed.
9:39 pm
>> president hillis: is there a date they're considering. >> perhaps a completely development application submitted by the introduction date. i think that's july 31 of this year. >> president hillis: they just wanted that on the record. >> yeah. we wanted that on the record, yeah. >> commissioner moore: we'll take that into consideration. >>clerk: very good, commissioners. there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter with modifications. on that motion -- [roll call] >>clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. item eight, case number 2018-011057 p.c.a. c-3 a office coerce planning code amendment. >> grood afternoon. i wanted to introduce lisa pagan with the office of workforce
9:40 pm
development. during a hearing back in 2015 -- -- [inaudible] >> miss pagan is here to give a appreciati presentation on what they found. i additionally have some information to pass out to you. this is a replacement page 19 of your packets. there was one small el rr error another to differentiate retail and nonretail services. >> good afternoon, president hillis and planning commissioners. my name is lisa pagan, and i'm the planning and policy director at the office of economic and workforce development. i'm just going to switch on the
9:41 pm
slides. on march 16, 2017, and february 22, 2018, the planning department staff and oewd presented data in two separate informational hearings on retail conversions in the c-3-r. we talked about the evolving state of the retail sector nationally and locally. we also talked about the desire for some property owner to see convert building -- owners to convert building into nonretail sales and services uses.
9:42 pm
preliminary discussions of policy goals and potential zoning changes occurred between the commission, the members of the public, and the department at these two hearings in the past. at the end of the last hearing, we held informational hearing in february . the planning commission asked for more data. they said we want to know more specifically what is located on the second and third stories within the c-3-r zone to understand more what the use mix is, what the vacancy rates are, and so prior to finalizing any sort of final policy recommendations, additional data was needed to look at this issue. following the february hearing, oewd contracted with the union square business improvement district to do a field survey and also research with property managers to look at the use mix on the second and third stories of the union square 605 parcels
9:43 pm
in the c-3-r bid area. the group worked hard over the summer. i want to thank them for this research. oewd and the planning department have analyzed the data that was collected and we'll be presenting that to you. on may 22, 2018, the board of supervisors adopted interim controls sponsored by supervisor peskin, and since the introduction, oewd and planning staff has been working with supervisor peskin to share the data that we've collected and with you over the last two years and the data that was collected over the summer to update the policy zoning recommendations for the c-3-r zone. so this chart highlights how the city's retail vacancy and lease rates interact, and how the union square retail trends
9:44 pm
compare to the city as a whole. the city overlay in orange union square statistics in blue, and they have out grown the citywide lease rates by a wide margin in the years after the last recession. and percurbman wakefield data that we've collected through a field survey. union square retail vacancy was 5.3% at the end of quarter two 2018. this was higher than the reported citywide vacancy at 3.2% for the same period. the citywide vacancy is collected from costar, which is not a field survey of our neighborhood commercial districts. i wanted to note that, and the cushman wakefield data that i'm reporting does include the westfield center. both citywide and union square
9:45 pm
vacancy rates are within the five to 10% retail target for retail districts generally. the long-term trend we showed in your previous hearings, informational hearings on this topic persisted through quarter two 2018. citywide retail lease rates went up 18% to $39 a square foot while in the same reporting period, union square retail lease rates went up 16% to $58 a square foot. so i just wanted to review this -- the office stock in the union square compared to citywide. according to updated quarter two 2018 information, union square's office lease rates are equal or higher to any part of san francisco. this was true across all market rates, despite an older have a
9:46 pm
class c mix. union square's office mix is comprised of predominantly class b space. this b accounts for 81% of union square's office and 10% of the citywide class b space. so this is more getting into the survey data on the second and third stories of the c-3-r. the survey that was conducted in the summer of 2018 shows that 73.8% of the second and third stories in the c-3-r zoning district are occupied by retail sales, retail services, or other uses that are open to the public. 18% of the uses on the second and third stories are occupied
9:47 pm
by nonretail sales and service uses that are not open or service uses that are not open to the general public, so business to business, assumedly. 8.2% of the second and third story space in the c-3-r is vacant. and this pie graph shows more detail of what we're calling retail sales and services or open to the public versus not open to the public and versus vacant. so again, 74% of second and third story uses are open to the public. this just shows you the data more aggregated in a different way. so now, i'm going to look at with the data that was collected in the survey, the average side
9:48 pm
of businesses on the second and third stories in it the c-3-r. if we look at the second and third stories combined, the average side is 5,165 square feet. if you look at the second floor, and that's where the businesses, excuse me, not open to the public, so i'm focusing on the businesses not open to the public because as part of the legislation, there's some size proposals for floors three through six. so we looked at what is the average square footage for office on the second and third floors, and those are 5,165, but then, we also looked at what is the average square footage for the district as a whole, which is the next slide. and for 80.4% of all c-3-r
9:49 pm
spaces are 5,000 square feet or less, and 64.5 of second and third floor spaces are 5,000 square feet or less. so really, if you look at all uses in the district, 5,000 square feet is the predominant size or lower of any type of use. and then, if we look at the second and third floor, it's about two thirds. so with that, i will hand it over to the planning department to go more into detail on the staff report on proposed legislation. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you, miss pagan. and now before we begin planning department staff report, lee hefner is here from supervisor peskin's office to speak on the ordinance. >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you, commissioners, commission president hill you i say. i just want to start by thanking lisa pagan from oewd as well as
9:50 pm
planning department. they've been instrumental in working with our office and certainly developing this proposal since the applications have been coming forward. this body beginning in early 2017, that i think kind of left this commission kind of unsure how to exercise its discretions relative to this. also bunt to acknowledge the union square business improvement district. they conducted this survey over the summer which is incredible, to have that data informing this policy. and while i think there are still maybe a few little points of disagreement around this policy, i think it mostly boyil down to a collaborative consensus piece of information, and i just want to thank everybody for being at the table. i just want to summarize, the current controls -- and -- the
9:51 pm
current controls prohibit nonretail sales and services on the ground floor, on the second floor and up. any nonretail services use over 5,000 square foot is subject to conditional use authorization. that conditional use authorization, again, it's proven particularly challenging from the city's perspective because historically, and is set forth in the general plan, the downtown c-3-r district has long principlely been a retail district and landmark retail destination for residents and tourists in san francisco, and i think our primary trust here is to push back on the assumption that retail is dead in the c-3-r. i think the data shows that enough is thriving that we can push back on that. in the vain of that earlier this year, as lisa mentioned, supervisor peskin passed interim
9:52 pm
zoning controls for the c-3-r district which added additional criteria with the intent really of putting the burden on project sponsors to prove that downtown retail is not viable in those spaces. the legislation before you would lift those interim zoning controls on the effective date of the legislation and insert new permanent controls, again, as set forth in this chart. nonretail sales and services would be permitted on floors 1 through 3 if the use is open to the general public. on floors four through six, nonretail would be permitted if principly under 5,000 feet, and then it would be conditionally permitted if over 5,000 square feet and against principally permitted on any floors floor seven and above. march some buildings in the
9:53 pm
c-3-r that are more than seven floors. it's not just fiction. just to be clear, to this commission and the members of the public, those would not be rendered discontinued, they would be rendered preexisting nonconforming, but they would be subject to the three year abandonment provisions in the code if they are left vacant for that period. lastly, the legislation would assess a new fee of $3 persquare foot office space that would be put to use for cap pal and ground infrastructure projects in the downtown c-3-r. it was really critical to our office that any funds generated by this conversion impact fee would be -- would remain within
9:54 pm
the downtown c-3-r and be rededicated to the pedestrian experience in this area. i think it's important for the body to consider this in the proposal both in the context of the city's booming market for office space which we know from the data is breaking records for lease size through the city and wanting to preserve, enhance and revitalize to allow retail to thrive. our office thinks there's multiple ways to address some of the problems like clusters vacancy that exist. it's not all just clothiers. and just to address a couple of the comments that i think you'll hear from folks today, and i
9:55 pm
want to make sure before this commission as well, we've heard from the westfield center, we've heard of their desire to have an independent lobby side on the west side, and my understanding is that would be subject to existing accessory use controls, it would not be prohibited, and the zoning administrator would probably opine on how to navigate those waters. we've also heard for calls for more flexibility on the third floor. i know, our office has responded flexibility has not been the friend of any project sponsor seeking to convert to office space on the upper floors in the downtown c-3-r, and actually that flexibility has in many ways ham strung the city in responding and examiner ice is its discretion through this body. so rather than flexibility, we've encouraged stakeholders to be specific in what criteria they would want to see met or
9:56 pm
believe would be justifiable for the conversion of office space on upper floors, but we really need specificity. we think that this proposal achieve does that. we think it is a databased proposal, a collaborative proposal, and while generating if funding for really coal stuff in the downtown c-3-r. so with that, i've spoken long enough and look forward to the discussion here and will remain around for any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. commissioners, to audrey butkus, planning department staff. as m the ordinance would additionally amend the planning and administrative codes to create the union square park open space and recreation fund fee. i won't go into the changes since lee railroad summarized thou those, but i'm happy to answer
9:57 pm
any questions. we've received one comment from the up i don't know square business improvement district, and they've requested that the proposal be amended allowing flexibility on the third floors. number one, amend the applicability of the proposed union square park recreation and open -- [inaudible] that proposed ordinance seeks to protect not only retail sales and service uses but also small nonretail sales and service uses by permitting retail sales and services under 5,000 square feet to locate on floors four through
9:58 pm
six. the fee should be waived in the office development proposed -- if the office development proposed is less than 5,000 square feet. the second amendment is simply clarifying in nature, and that is to amend table 210.22 in the proposed ordinance to clarify that nonretail sales and services under 5,000 square feet are principlely permitted in the c-3-r. that's knob substantive, that's simply corrective. that concludes staff's presentation, and we're all available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you all very much. we'll open it up first for public comment. and if others would like to speak, please lineup on the screen side of the vacancy rate.
9:59 pm
we've met with peskin's office a
10:00 pm
couple of times and also brokers and owners. just really quick as outlined in my letter, you know, retail is changing. it's not dead as the reporters always want to ask me right around the holiday season. it is not dead, it is changing, it is dynamic, but stores are needing less space. we are becoming -- like, retail is becoming more like showrooms, for he people to come in -- people to come in, touch and feel the products, but shop on-line. we need essentially less space. it is also very -- very challenging for people -- people don't want to go up stairs. they don't want to go up on the second and third floors, right? they want it to be quick and easy. larger spaces are hard to secure. we are facing a lot of theft in union square. i was at a police meeting yesterday. there were 43 robberies in the central retail district in september. a t o