tv [untitled] August 23, 2013 12:00am-12:31am PDT
and objectives and shows commissioner brandon the money, which is always one of her concerns. [laughter] >> why sfwp? why us? well, i wrote this because i'm not going to remember it and i've got one minute to go. our team has been and will continue to be dedicated to achieving the delicate balance between that essential passion for creativity and the long-term legacy of economic sustainability. we understand and respect the port's mission and its challenges. we understand that we are not and never will be the owner of this asset, but simply aspire to be the port's partner in creating and care taking for it for the next generations. we share a long-term vision to establish a canvas upon which many future generations are able to create their own uses and reuses in the ebb and flow of culture and economic trends. we have the team to execute the
project. we have the financial capacity. we have the waterfront experience. we have the vision, and we have the commitment. this project embodies our mission and all of our core values, and we never give up. thank you very much. do i have one minute left? [laughter] >> okay, are there any questions for the developers? please ask. >> thank you. is there any public comment? no. commissioners? no? he said you can go first. [laughter]
>> i want to thank both teams. i think we have an embarrassment of riches here, no pun intended. but they really do, with two really stellar teams. and i think we know both teams quite well. i just want to be clear. if i could, i'll ask each of you. during the phase 1 -- before starting phase ii, is it the intention that the space up in the bulkhead would be tenant -- would be inhabited or tenanted while the phase ii construction takes place? or would there be a time where it would be empty during that phase? >> no, we have -- while we're doing the seismic on the bulkhead, we would be able to maintain the tenants throughout the construction.
>> and that's during the seismic and phase 1? >> yes, that would enable us to do it. you may not have nodtioned. we will not be putting office in the second floor of the shed. ~ noticed in phase 1 because that's going to be [speaker not understood]. we think it doesn't make sense to put the offices in the second floor of the shed and then take them back out a year later. >> i think the biggest difference i saw other than some of the new things that simon did to take our ideas -- [laughter] >> -- was that our project tried to address your request which was if you ever get phase 1, can you do it? and then if you get phase ii, how would you do it. so, i think the difference, if i heard it correctly -- i don't know, i'm not asking simon a question. but to do the seismic upgrade for just the bulkhead i can't imagine it's economically feasible which i think his are more tied together. so, we're prepared to do a phase 1 if that's what you say
you're prepared to transact. ~ as we proposed it. and that's why we have the uses that we have. some of them are more interim or flexible. as matt said in the last presentation we had, when we did the did the rehab across the street at 1 market. having the 1 market street restaurant open during construction was a living nightmare because they were operating a full-time class a restaurant while we were doing seismic upgrades. and that's just something you don't want to repeat. so, we drew it up in a way that we could do the phase 1 first, have the tenants with the food truck concept be flexible, and then come back if you decided in three years to award the second part. obviously as simon said, we both would rather do it all at once. by we tried to address it in a way that you could choose one versus the other. hopefully that's not an inaccurate statement. >> any other questions?
>> i just want to thank you both for a really great presentation. you both sounded very experienced participants and i think it's a great project. that's all i need to say at this time. >> i want to piggyback off my fellow commissioners. too eagerly, this is just great. both different visions, both creative thinking, both out of the box. i just am impressed with both. this is a great project. wrong the port could be in a better position to have two excellent candidates. i really don't know what to say. [speaker not understood]. thank you.
>> i had another question. is there any percentage rent considered in the tmg proposal? >> in phase ii we'd have percentage rent. i think in phase 1 we're paying the base rent. thank you. >> any other questions? comments? i might have more than one, but if i was reading the numbers right, simon, is yours going to cost about less than 40 million to do phase 1 and 2, or was that 26 million just infrastructure? >> excuse me. the 26 million infrastructure, project costs 118 million,
roughly in the same ballpark with tax credits. about 100 million. >> and can you guys both just give me a cursory review of what your maritime components will be? [laughter] >> you know, i beat him because i put this little self-launch crane in. he missed my little self-launch 4,000 pound crane. there's one over in marina and sauselido where the public can go. i beat him. [laughter] >> thank you, commissioner. obviously maritime uses are important, both because it takes advantage of this wonderful asset on the water and because it's so important
for trust consistency and bcdc approve. i think our proposals are very similar. in both cases i think the teams are proposing to rehabilitate the existing floating dock of the north. we are also proposing during the long-term phase to build and do guest stock along the south. the guest stock along the south would really operate part of the south beach harbor complex there and could be for both permanent docking and for larger craft that are guest docking. the floating dock on the north is more of a light duty facility and would be good for small craft launching for a human craft like kayak launching as well as ongoing taxi service which would serve both this project, of core, the brannan street wharf. in addition, of course, we would have some maritime facilities inside the building to serve the boaters who are coming and going. i had been -- was involved many years in the operation of south beach harbor which i'm happy to hear the port will soon be
operating, where you have any kind of berthing use, you need rest rooms and showers and laundry and lockers and work rooms. it's just a lot of maritime facilities are involved in any kind of working small boat situation. so, we would have that as well. this is connected to separate from just the public access, which is the apron that would wrap all the way around the pier, new problemvs supported by the seismic upgrade. and of course the expansion and improvement along the north and south apron area near the embarcadaro. >> thank you. simon? [laughter] >> we have stuck to transient berthing. there's a difference between transient berthing having to do with bcdc. marina comes with filling the bay. transient if you don't stay more than two weeks is okay.
so, similar to what amy said, we've got transient berthing. we have an elaborate plan which i made in the first thing -- the first presentation to extend the seawall for the south beach harbor to create a harbor for large visiting vessels. we did not include it in here. i have alluded to it and said it will be the subject of working with the port travel master at the south beach harbor and exploring that with bcdc because it is in everybody's best interest to get on with the mitigated negative declaration. if you start putting seawalls in you need for proper berthing, moffatt and nickel who has done an extensive study for us, [speaker not understood]. >> any other questions and comments?
i want to thank both teams for your presentation and thank you for coming back again. we really appreciate it. and this has really been greater detail and a wonderful presentation. we really appreciate you coming. it's going to be a really hard decision, but thank you so much. >> thank you. >> item 14, new business. >> is there any new business? >> commissioners, any business? >> i would just like to ask if someone sometime in the future could give us a status on the complaints for darling delaware and what's going on there. >> certainly. >> especially their order complaint for hotline that's supposed to be in effect. >> any other new business? any public comment on new business? no?
>> good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the august 12, 2013, meeting of the san francisco small business commission, and the meeting is called to order at 5:35. thank you for the sfgov, tv. for their support. take this opportunity to silence your cell phones and devices, there is a sign in for anyone who would like to be added to the small business mailing list, there are speaker cards available at the front counter, all speaker cards allow us to prepare more accurate record for the comments. you can return the speaker cards to maoe. >> roll call attendance?
>> adams? >> here. >> dooley? >> here. >> dwight. >> here. >> o'brien. >> here. >> ortiz-cartagena. >> here. >> riley is excused? >> white? >> here. >> next item. we move on to item number two, which is again public comment, it allows members of the public to comment generally on matters in the commission's purview and suggests new items for the commission's future consideration, do we have any members of the public who would like to make the comments on any items that are not on today's agenda? >> great, seeing none, public comment is closed. next item, please? >> thank you, mr. president, we are moving on to items three and four which we will call together. >> item three is a presentation by the san francisco planning department on formula retail ordinance and policies in the city of san francisco, including but not limited to
the background, list and current laws and proposals that will be supported by a presentation of the planning department staff and explainary document, and to the commission on formula retail controls for today and tomorrow for the staff. and that is a discussion and possible action item and we have also, item number four being called. and which is a discussion, and possible action, to make recommendations to the planning department, and planning commission on the formula retail study scope and the document for that item is an economic analysis of formula retail, and request for proposal and scope document, and again, this is a discussion and possible action item. and before we start with the staff presentation, from sophia heyword, director drazy would like to make a brief comment. >> i am on. >> so, commissioners, just under item number four, i have just, there is a one page, kind of laundry list of items that the commission has brought up,
and topics and i just put them in there to make sure that if you needed to have your memory jogged on things that have been brought up by the different commissioners on the formula retail that is in there, this is not meant to be a proposal but these are all at one point in time different commissioners have brought up these items in relationship to formula retail. so i just wanted to let you know that is there in your binder. >> and could i ask one quick question? >> did we call, three and four together or just taking these separately? >> we called three and four together and just... yes. >> good afternoon, good evening commissioners, sophie, hayward thank you for having me here. early they are summer president fong requested that the planning staff make a presentation to the planning commission about the current
state of formula retail controls in san francisco. that request was timely, given that at that point, i believe that there were seven proposals and now, it may be closer to ten or eleven proposals. that have been recently enacted or are bending at the board of supervisors related to formula retail, those changes and proposals that are floating around right now could be characterized in two ways, one is the changes to the structure of the formula retail, definition, and implementation in the planning code and then the second category are changes to the geologify. and typically the formula retail controls have been applied in neighborhood commercial district and proposals to extend those controls to c3 and pdr districts as well in certain circumstances. because of the number of proposals in the projects currently under consideration,
the planning department's primary goal is to have time to study the issue including current conditions on the ground in san francisco so that future decisions and policy can be informed by real data as well as public input. so the manning department is looking at the issue and i know that this commission is looking at the issue and the mayor's office is also looking at the issue. and this evening, my presentation will provide a previous history of the formula controls in san francisco and i would also like to touch on the definition of formula retail because that is important to understand as we move forward and then, lastly, i will identify topics that we hope to study and outline ideas that may be considered in order to develop a policy that will be broadly applied and refined if necessary, based on data and specific neighbors. so first, i just want to highlight two points in the relatively brief history of
form law retail controls in san francisco. the first controls were adopted in 2004, and those controls were introduced by supervisor gonzalez and they required notification in most districts and that means a mailed notice to owners and occupants in the 100 foot radius, and those first controls did require conditional use authorization for formula retail but only on very specific lots in the neighborhood of karl and cole and stanon. and those first controls did however, invoke the first band on form law retail and that was in the neighborhood commercial district xh is now in nct. and at the outset, or when this first set of controls was proposed, the definition of formula retail was four or more establishments, that was in version one of the legislation by the time that the
legislation was passed, that definition had changed to eleven or more other retail establishments which effectively means 12 or more establishments and between 2004 and 2007, a number of those controls were expanded through to leading to 2007 when the voters passed proposition g which was a charter amendment requiring conditional use authorization for formula retail establishments and neighborhood commercial districts, this is important to note, because this is the section of our controls that we cannot change. we can certainly change the definition, and we can change the criteria that are used to evaluate formula retail establishments but the fact that formula retail establishments require, conditional use authorization and a planning commission hearing in nc districts cannot be changed unless we go back to the ballot to the voters. i have distributinged to you and i have left copies out for
the public, one page sheet and on one side there is a chart that summarizes the specific controls applicable by voweding district and including some zoning districts that have a some what new nuanced application of application controls such as geary street where the formula retail requires a cu, but for example, pet food supply stores are banned. >> on the other side of that sheet is the definition of formula retail, from the planning code as well as the criteria used to evaluate conditional use authorization proposals for formula retail, and so, well, i will not go through all of those rye tera necessarily in the report, or in this presentation, for you, and i am certainly happy to answer any questions, but the basic definition of formula retail in the planning code is a type of retail sales activity or retail sales establishment xh along with 11 or more other
retail sales establishments located in the u.s. maintains two are more of the following features, a standardized array of merchandise, decor or color scheme, uniform apparel and standardized signage and most areas where there are form law retail controls, those controls are conditional use authorization. and the cu criteria are the same regardless of the use, size, or number of retail outlets. and moving forward, are the long term goal the planning department is to develop a consistent city wide structure for the controls that can be refined, if necessary, based on the needs of specific areas. our hope is that we will have a fairly consistent definition of formula retail from district to district. and in the short term we are commissioning a study to provide real data to inform the changes to the definition and
future policy changes. and questions, or topics that we grable with when we consider the controls and definition, are whether the definition captures appropriate uses, and so, currently the definition applies only to u.s.-based businesses for example, international businesses that do not have eleven or more retail outlets in the united states. and i am thinking of pharmacies or david's tea and they are not considered formula retail by the planning department. there are also readily identifiable chains that are not considered formula retaylor subject to the formula retail controls such as gyms, 24 hour fitness or gas stations, or whatnot and those are not useful that fall into this category. >> and we are looking for the criteria for evaluation and 11 or more establishments a hard and fast masic number.
should a business with 12 outlets be evaluated using the same criteria as the larger chain such as subway. >> should it reflect whether it has outlets in the area, such as lee's deli. or thousands of outlets, and are there uses, grocery stores or pharmacies come to mind but there could be others, providing retail that is not typically provided by operators or not readily accessible in some neighborhoods >> the commission adopted a policy that considers the concentration of existing formula retail in a geographic area and considering new applications in the upper market zoning district and we want to evaluate how those controls are working. and we also would like to consider visual impacts. and by definition, formula retail establishments do have
some level of standardized brand presence that could be signage or color scheme and at that level of standardization contributes to a sense of playing that can respond to the unique character of san francisco neighborhoods. and we certainly want to look at economic impacts, and issues that we are considering include vacantcy rates and retail rents, and the availability of goods and services to meet the daily needs and the provision of quality jobs for residents and we also would like to reconsider the geographic boundaries. two proposals will extend the formula retail controls beyond the nc district and two pending proposals but i realized that there is one set of in terms controls that may have already been effective and that is in the mid market area from fifth to van ness, i believe. and it would extend them beyond the nc district and into more industrial pdr districts and
the city's downtown c3 district and we are hopeful that it will provide data to extend the districts where formula retail controls apply. >> and on july 25th, the planning commission passed resolution, 18931, recommending to the board of supervisors that the issue of formula retail be studied further and to that end, the planning department is partnering with the office of economic workforce development to over sue a prepared study to provide data and analysis specific to san francisco and the planning commission, the planning staff and the board of supervisors and this commission can use to inform policy, as you know our time line is short, and we are hoping to select a consultant and to begin the contract soon, so that we can return to the planning commission for a planning study this fall and complete it late in the fall and the rush is because we are doing this as new controls are coming fast from the board of supervisors for example and we
want to help inform decisions to be extend possible. >> and that concludes my prepared presentation, and i certainly have lots of information, and i am happy to answer questions that might be an easier format to get the information that you are specifically looking for you thank you. >> do we have any commissioner questions? >> how did they decide on eleven? was there some... i am just curious, how did they come to that number? >> i wish that i knew. the best that i could do was to follow the legislative trail so that i know that version one of the 2004 legislation referred to four or more retail outlets and the final version referred to eleven or more other. my suspicion is that four or
more captured successful, relatively independent businesses in the city that some number of supervisors wanted to support. that is just a guess, i don't have the institutional knowledge to know the specifics but that is just what i am guessing. >> well, i would like to thank you, very much for this presentation and i am blad that the planning department is coming and letting us know, you know you are correct. there is a lot of new legislation coming down the pike. and it is effecting every neighborhood has their own definition and it is not the same. and i do believe that we need some type of uniformty and that this needs to be brought up. and everybody has their own opinions and it has been in the paper a lot lately, in both and so i really appreciate your comments this evening and it is not an easy one and you are right. there is a lot of legislation coming