Question regarding commissioner dooleys recommendation about after 10 00 that it be allowed. I am hesitant to put it as a blanket on this legislation rather than to deal with it on a casebycase basis. Because in addition, to the nightclub and restaurants you also have Property Owners and residents in that area that we might need to consider. We could amend it to say that it would be waived adjacent to night clubs. Im not quite sure what would be the best way to word it . I think were just trying to say that the restrictions there to protect brickandmortar businesses because they are losing businesses, it wont apply to them in the afterhours, so an amendment to make it easier for them to get a permit to operate afterhours. I am not disagreeing with that. I dont know whether or not we should put in into a blanket statement in this legislation issue . First off, if there is afterhours, the criteria afterhours of a mobile food vendor wants to operate, there is a more stringent noticing requirement. So with that idea of residential combined, but may i make a recommendation, since supervisor wiener is sort of in discussion with entertainment commission, maybe your recommendation is that perhaps the recommendation is that you would be sensitive and encourage supervisor wiener to work something out along those lines unless you want it rereferred back to you to be heard . Am i making sense on that . Yes. Just to to say that you might want to just indicate your support of what supervisor wiener would work out with the entertainment commission, if that is the direction you would want to go. I think that makes more sense. Chris, could you read that back . Before you read that back, director dickendrizzi, do you have another comment . Okay. Commiss. Chris. One moment, please. Commissioners i have a motion from commissioner dooley to recommend approval of 120193 recommendation that there be a ban on you all former retail food trucks and to accommodate the location in the vicinity of nightlife businesses that may be located within a proximity of brickandmortar restaurants that may be closed after a certain hour. Yes, good. Does that accurately reflect it . Yes. That motion is from commissioner dooley and i believe commissioner obrien seconded. Would you like to move forward with roll call . Yes. Commissioner adams . Yes. Commissioner dooley . Yes. Commissioner dwight absent. Commissioner ortizcartagena . Yes. Commissioner obrien . Yes. Commissioner white . Yes. Commissioner [rao eurl ] . Yee riley . Yes. That passes 60. Next one, this is item no. 11. I move that we recommend this. Would you like me to summarize what this does . Yes. This is the ordinance that would establish mobile food facilities on private property within postsecondary institutions and medical institutions located in residential districts. Yes. I second that. Commissioners we have a motion from commissioner dooley to recommend approval of 120125, seconded by commissioner obrien. Mr. President , would you like a roll call yes. President adams . Yes. Commissioner dooley . Yes. Commissioner dwight is absent. Commissioner ortizcartagena . Yes. Commissioner obrien . Yes. Commissioner white . Yes. Commissioner yee riley . E. Commissioners, that motion passes 60. Thank you everybody. Commissioners we now back to item 7, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file no. 120796 planning code establishing the divasdero street neighborhood commercial district. We have Stephanie Tucker legislative aide to supervisor oleague. Good afternoon commissioners. Im Stephanie Tucker with supervisor olagues office. I dont know if you have any questions or if you would like me to go into detail about exactly what is being proposed . Essentially on divasdero from that is right ofarrell street its zoned. A few months ago a conversation was started with the divasdero merchants on a named commercial district and this is the fruition of that discussion. Essentially it doesnt change any of the existing restrictions around alcohol use. But it does allow it allows for the way it is now, properties along divasdero nc 2 bars, restaurants, limited restaurants, movie theaters and other entertainment and trade shops are prohibited on the second floor, which is standard for nc 2 zoning. And currently the nc 2 [ 2 ] districts have a minimum parking controls that are outlined in balancing code section 15 1, can would also not be affected about the named commercial district and this would be changed to create a named commercial district along divasdero from haight to ofarrell street. It would institute a maximum parking controls within the divasdero ncd outlined in section 151. 1, which is the same parking controls that are currently in place and it would remove the divasdero alcohol restricted district, but preserve the prohibition on new Liquor Stores in ncd. And it would maintain the prohibition on fringe Financial Services in the proposed divasdero street ncd and provides a 5 height bonus for properties zoned 4x along divasdero street. There are only two blocks on this stretch of divasdero street which is haight to oak. They are zoned 40x. The rest of the blocks are zoned 65x and would not be impacted by these provisions. So we are before you today to ask for your approval and recommendation so that question move this on. Great. Thank you. Do we have any commissioner comments . Do we have any Public Comment on item no. 7 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Do we have a motion on item 7 or any other commissioner comments . I move that we recommend moving this forward. Do we have a second . I will second. Roll call . Yes. Commissioners there is a motion by commissioner dooley and seconded by commissioner ortizcartagena. To recommend approval of board of supervisors file no. 120796, on that motion, Commission Adams . Yes. Commissioner dooley . Yes. Commissioner dwight is absent. Commissioner, ortizcartagena . Yes. Commissioner obrien is absent. Commissioner white . Yes. Commissioner yee riley . Yes. Commissioners that passes 50. Okay item 8 discussion and possible action to make recommendations to board of supervisors on board of supervisors file no. 120814 planning code establishing the fillmore street neighborhoodcommercial district and were joined once again by Stephanie Tucker, legislative aide to supervisor christi olague. Welcome. If we could continue this item until the second week of december. We would like to have one more meeting with the merchants so we can discuss the controls and make sure that community is on board with what is presented here today. Our next meeting is december 10th. Perfect. That would be perfect do we have Public Comment on item no. 8 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Do we have a motion then to continue this to december 10th meeting . I move. Second. Roll call. I didnt catch who made the motion . Commissioner yee riley. Okay. Seconded by commissioner white. Commissioners, we have a motion by commissioner yee riley and seconded by commissioner white to continue board of supervisors file no. 120814 to the december 10th meeting on that motion roll call . Yes. Commissioner adams . Yes. Commissioner dooley . Yes. Commissioner dwight is absent. Commissioner ortizcartagena . Yes. Commissioner obrien, absent. Commissioner white . Yes. Commissioner yee riley . Yes. Commissioners that motion passes 50 and that item will be calendared at your december 10th meeting thank you so much commissioners, have a great day. Thank you. E. Next item commissioners your item no. 12 discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file no. 121064 business and tax regulations, police codes, parking stations, revenue control equipment, licensing regulations, parking tax bonds, administrative citation process. You have a presentation by mr. Greg kato, tax and Treasurers Office and there kato is making the presentation at the request of supervisor campos office. Thank you, welcome thank you for your patience. Thank you. Good afternoon. The legislation before you today amends the business and tax regulations code with regard to enforcing the parking tax. Our office would like to thank supervisor campos for carrying that legislation. This follows on the efforts of former supervisors mcgoldrick, dufty the parking tax is pretty significant tax for San Francisco. It collects a little over 70 million a year in taxes. Most of that is appropriated to the mta for transit programs, and so its a very important tax. The legislation specifically amends how parking bonds are treated. Parking bonds are required of operators to protect the citys interest and provide security for the taxes that the operator holds prior to remitting them to the city. So what happens is when you or i go and park in a parking lot, and we make a payment, were actually paying the tax at that time. And the operator holds onto that and remit its a month later. Since those operators are holding onto those tax dollars on behalf of the city, we do require some security for that. Currently there are seven Different Levels of bonding required based on how much gross receipt yours operation may have. What we heard back from the Park Administration after this change was made in late 2010 and instituted in 2011 these were very large bans and in many cases if you had a small increase in your revenues, you could see a doubling of your bonding requirement. So for instance an operator who just had under 1 million in receipts from one year that moved to just over 1 million in receipts the following year would have a doubling of their bond from 200,000 to 400,000. So the proposed legislation makes this a 50,000 increase and we made smaller bonds so you dont have quite the jumps. In addition, this legislation does provide for reduced bonding requirements for operators that have a strong track record of Tax Compliance. And, in fact reducing that bonding requirement by half. So that same operator that had the 200,000 requirement would have a 100,000 requirement if they were to qualify. What this does is makes sure that we are protecting the citys money, but also not that we are providing . Incentive for those folks who are good operators and strong operators. We did an analysis and found approximately half of the current 650 operations in the city would be potentially eligible for this, if it were to move forward. And finally with regarding to bonds, this makes some clarification as to what the suretys rights and obligations. The surety is the entity that issues the bond to the operator. And they do have rights and obligations when they issue that bond. So we made some clarifications to that. In addition, this legislation make changes to how administrative cite rations are handled. Administrative citations are the Tax Collectors equivalent of a parking ticket. These are when an operator has something that is out of compliance, an investigator or Compliance Officer can go out and issue a citation. However, the process for having a hearing and contesting the citation is kind of convoluted as currently written. So we have simplified this administrative citation process and also provided the opportunity for a hearing by mail. This is similar to how the city handles park tickets. Persons who receive a citation will have the opportunity to request a inperson hearing if they choose, but this will be a much simpler process where the Tax Collector doesnt have to name a hearing officer and go through the whole process and instead they have 30 days to contest and they can actually the operator can actually contest by mail. Finally, we do have some clarifications as to what the requirements are for Government Entities other than the city when they operate a parking location for themselves. This does not apply to third party operates that are contracted by Government Entities. And the large reason for this is that if a Government Entity has costs of compliance, they may be able to deduct that from the taxes that they remit to the city. So we found we would much rather have them remit the taxes rather than deduct the cost of compliance. Any commissioner comments . Commissioner ortiz . Thank you. This is amazing legislation. I think it will really help small business. I had a couple of questions. If a school, lets say, everett during gay pride and awful, that they have parking. They do it themselves. Are they required to go through the process of getting the permits and everything, even its a oneday use . You are talking about like a San Francisco Unified School District . Yes. There was prior legislation that handled this issue, where if there is a completely volunteerrun operation, that is on a San Francisco unified school site, they may get a permit through the pta in order to operate and they are not required to go through the certificate of authority, the Police Permitting process. They have a process where essentially they work with the pta and then they are issued a dayuse permit. Okay. And one more question. Regarding at the valet component, valet operators obviously Service Hotels and restaurants and i saw the immediate closure of denial of a business to get a coa to the bond. Prior to the bond coverage being expired or terminate at least the business operator services, restaurant xyz has an operator, and they are not being compliant. So the operator of the restaurant next day doesnt have valet sun affected. And is affected. Is there any way to implement prior notification to the operator that their subcontractor is not going to be issued a coa through the bond issue . You are talking about how it currently is . Yes. I would like to talk to you about situations where you feel there has been oneday notice for closure. I know that our Parking Enforcement folks do work hard and work overtime with operators in order to help them understand the obligations under the law. And i have not im not aware of any situation that you have one days notice, but certainly happy to hear feedback if that has been the case or perceived to be the case. What we do have right now is that after an operator submits their certificate of authority, the treasurer Tax Collector has 45 days to respond and typically we have an iterative process with operators in order that they understand the obligations that they are complying. If you are indicating there are instances where this iterative process has not occurred, please let me know and i can followup on that. The restaurants and hotels, its not fair for a restaurant, if the operator, the practicing operator is not doing what they are supposed to be doing. Im just thinking of the potential effects of other business wheres a parking operator is not doing what they should be doing. Unfortunately under the code we cant discuss a Tax Compliance issue with a third party about if something is happening, with this subcontractor. Were prevented from going and contacting someone else and saying by the way, do you know that they are having trouble . That would probably disadvantage them even more. Okay. Thank you. You are welcome. Any other commissioner comments . Do we have any Public Comment on item no. 12 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners . Make a motion. I would like just i just feel concerned about not the operators because you do an amazing job and i understand the and the industry, but im trying to look out for the hotel and Restaurant Owners that some kind of measure if an existing operator is not going to be issued a bond or renewal that they know prior to the hearing date at spd, because i have been at hearing date wheres they just shut the operator down. You could make a recommendation. So if we could make a recommendation prior to the bonding. I never want the city to be exposed, but prior, maybe the parking operators could notify that were not going to issue this at all. That gives the operator maybe some time to wind down so hotel and Restaurant Operators can say that were out of industry for whatever reason. I think you are talking about two separate processes. So the Police Permitting process is separate from the treasurerTax Collectors office and the certificate of authority is a separate issue that we deal with. And what happens with the certificate of authority is as along as someone is in compliance, then they are eligible to be issued a certificate of authority. And so if someone out of compliance then they are not issued a certificate of authority. And so once they come into compliance, they are issued. It the Police Permit is a separate issue and that is handled by the permit officer and its separate from our office. We certainly are one of the referral agencies just like planning and fire and mta to make sure that there is something that is allowed and that if were going to issue a permit, that we plan to issue a certificate of authority. But its the Police Permitting process is a separate process from the certificate of authority and the bond. The bond is just something that is supposed to roll over from yeartoyear and in effect from january 1 to december 31 and typically rolls over for most operators. So its not necessarily the bond that is going to be its potentially the permitting process okay. And i cant really speak to how they conduct the process. Okay. Then that is another issue then. So i guess i will move forward. You want to make the recommendation to approve as written . Yes. Make the recommendation to approve as written. Do we have a sec . Second . Irene . Roll call . Commissioners, we have a recommendation, motion by commissioner ortiz to recommend approval of item 12. Roll call commissioner adams . Yes. Dooley . Yes. White is absent. Commissioner ortizcartagena . Yes. Commissioner obrien . Yes. Commissioner white . Yes. [kwheurgs ] yee riley . Commissioner yee riley . Yes. Commissioners that item passes 60. Next, thank you item. Next item 13 directors report. Commissioners actually we have to be out of this room at 4 30. We have four more minutes and so i would like to make a recommendation that items 13 through 17 that we Carry Forward to our december 10th commission meeting. Does that have to be a motion . Yes, lets make a motion. Yes, lets make a motion to carry it through. I make a motion to carry items 1317 through to the next [spw rbg ] sbc meeting. Second. Before we take that motion, can we just for the record ask for Public Comment . Yes, can i have Public Comment . On moving items 1317 to the next meeting . 13 to 17. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. We have a motion by commissioner obrien and seconded by dooley, would you like a voice vote on that one . Yes. Roll call. Roll call commissioner adams . Yes. Dooley . Yes. Dwight is absent. Ortizcartagena . Is absent. Commissioner obrien . Yes. Commissioner white . Yes. Commissioner yee riley . Yes. Thank you. All right 1 . Item 18 is general Public Comment. Do we have anyone items that would like to be discussed by the public that was not discussed in todays meeting . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Item 19 is new business. Next item. Commissioners item 20 is adjournment. Do we have a motion to adjourn . I move. I second. All in favor . Aye. The meeting is adjourned at 4 29 p. M
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.