tv [untitled] September 20, 2010 11:30pm-12:00am PST
independent businesses to make ends meet in this city. i know that many of them might depend all of the sales that they can get from whatever they can get. i feel that pharmacies selling a lot of other things like fatty foods, chips, soda pop, that are also addictive and harmful to the health of people but do not seem to be on the list. there are many car lot in this city, cars to a lot of people as well. anyways, that is all. thanks. supervisor chiu: anyone else that would like to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, i wanted to say that i really appreciated the testimony from the pharmacists and the health experts that had studies, and as well as from mr. gordon and ms. williams from the
tobacco free coalition. to nick from charlie's drug store, talking to these people would make a lot of sense, the intermission -- information given to us by mr. gordon, the guide to tobacco free pharmacy's could be of use. i am always open to talking with the small business commission, and others as we have, to try to find solutions. i know that we have been in discussions with them and i am hoping we could move forward today. thank you. i would like to thank my colleagues for moving forward
what is a very important issue. i certainly support this legislation and the concept behind it. i was very concerned about the situation affecting charley. i do not think that there are other businesses in this specific and special situation. i am wondering, have there been any conversations about providing them with time to transition out of the current business they are in now? it sounds from the testimony that if this were to go into effect, that establishment would close. would there be openness to considering a narrow exception in terms of giving them time to transition? >> from the information given to me,, the information is that i do not think that they will close, from what i heard. there's a certain percentage of sales from cigarette products. he is making the assumption that
he will end his pharmacy in order to keep cigarette sales, which is a balancing the needs to happen. but we are very clear, pharmacies that promote health and medicine, cigarettes cannot mix. i think there has been plenty of time for discussion. dr. katz? >> if i could just try to give some information. the legislation before you in removing the exemption does not affect his business. your exemption is only about the supermarkets and the large businesses. the issue that comes up with this particular pharmacy is that we would have said, as the department of public health, it fell under the previous pounds. i remember the small business commission supported it in 2008.
the small business commission was asked about this in 2008 and they supported it in part because other small businesses that are not pharmacies and do not have the same conflict of interest would go on to sell tobacco. this is not about banning the sale, this is simply trying to separate health-promoting business and non-health promoting business. when this issue was taken up in 2008, they supported it. this issue came up with this particular pharmacy because of some of the other things that they sell. could they be considered a supermarket? because there was a pending legislation and possibility that we would change and clarified the legislation, we made the decision, as a regulatory agency, that we were going to wait for legal decision and whenever the board ultimately did, rather than forcing from
two years ago. two years ago, when this was passed, we could have said that this is a pharmacy. but if you get in because of the sale of food, could it be considered a supermarket? so, we did not take action, we decided that was the best way to move forward, to await further decisions. i would summarize by saying that this business has been allowed to continue under both for the last two years. the small business commission did not rule on the first, they made a recommendation and are free to change their minds. as before, we were not thinking of them so much at this point because most of the businesses affected are safeway, lucky. one thing that we learned in the lawsuit is that we have to treat
like like like. we are now allowed under the law under equal protection to treat supervisor maxwell: similar things maxwell: is this or is this not a light? -- three things separately? supervisor maxwell: is this like? >> it should not have been allowed to sell tobacco under the first passage. supervisor maxwell: the idea is that they should not be allowed to sell tobacco. thank you. >> or do not sell cigarettes. we do not dictate the solution. their business has to make a choice, stop the pharmacy or stop the sale of tobacco. supervisor maxwell: so, we are still where we were.
supervisor to? >> it clarifies the question, although there does seem to beat -- seem to be some factual differences about whether this business would continue operating and under what circumstances. i am wondering, could i ask the owner, can you tell us about the impact of this legislation? i do not have an issue if it turns out that you have to make a decision, one way or the other. >> we would have to close. we would be closing. i cannot work for my landlord, plain and simple. we would have to close, it would not work. we have crunched the numbers. as far as the small business commission, they get that recommendation because i was given assurances that this would not affect me. supervisor maxwell: i guess, i
am concerned that so much of your business is cigarettes. i am concerned that you are in a low-income neighborhood. i am concerned that so much of your business is cigarettes that you would have to close the pharmacy to continue selling tobacco to the very people that we are trying to target that are hit the most. that concerns me. >> i understand where you're coming from. supervisor maxwell: i would like to, first of all, go forward with this legislation, but i would like to give you some time to talk to some other people. as we have said before, most independent pharmacies are no longer selling tobacco and they are in all kinds of neighborhoods. maybe you need to go back and rethink your business plan, talk to other people. i am truly, truly concerned.
many of these low-income people you are talking about code of the san francisco general hospital. -- go to the san francisco general hospital. these have the highest rates of asthma. i am extremely concerned about so much of your business going for tobacco that you would have to close the pharmacy because you cannot sell cigarettes. >> i understand, i know i was only given three minutes to explain all this, which is impossible, but the far as the takes of about 6% of the space in the store. i could sit here all day, and i know no one has the time to do that. i am hoping for more time to come into your offices and better explain the situation. supervisor maxwell: if we do not pass it today, -- if we do pass
it today, you would have another week or so before it goes to the full board. i would be more than happy to meet with you in any way that we can. if we see that there is some issue, we would have even more than we could arrange to have more time. i would be more than willing to talk with you, bringing in anyone and everyone, bringing in people to talk with you and help with that. thank you for coming. colleagues, with that, may we move this forward? all right. next? >> item #2, ordinance amending section 128 of the san francisco planning code to require that proceeds from the sale of transferable spent on rehabilitation and property, to establish reporting rehabilitation and maintenance, from an individually landmarked zoned district except amending zoning use district map district and making conforming amendments
to the chinatown and francisco general plan; adopting findings, including section 101.1. >> this ordinance is doing two different things. and the property in question, also known as old st. mary's church, individual landmark no. 2, it is the oldest church in san francisco, the oldest catholic church in california. currently is around chinatown visitor retail. as such, this property cannot sell their transferable development rights. only property is located in the c-three zoning district can do this. the first two components changing the general plan and zoning map, rezoning it to commercial, the downtown element
contains a map where the general plan needs to be amended to swap the location of that zoning. the zoning map has to change. those are the two first components. the other component of the legislation falls section of planning 128 of the code. i have a brief presentation that i can go through, if you like, outlining how the program works. it is very confusing and it took me a while to understand the variety of components. essentially, what this program is, established in 1985 when the downtown element was created. a tool that has been around for many decades as a preservation
incentive tool to allow properties that are landmark or historical significant to sell on used or rights above the building to other properties, therefore taking away demolition pressure from the property. this has been in place since 1985 in san francisco. over time, because originally the city urged development to go south of market, there were many restrictions as to where a property with tdr to sell could sell them to. in the packet there is a chart that explains the variety of zoning districts. one of the things we are doing in this legislation, we wanted to try baby steps, allowing the individual landmarks in the downtown, allowing those 44
properties to any property located in the district. supervisor maxwell: how many other c3 districts are there? >> approximately 5. >> where are they located, basically? >> kenai have the overhead? this is the chart that i was referring to. it does not show exactly the typical layout, but you have c-3 g., r, , f, fd, p is also allowed to sell tdr's, and that is it. looking at this map, it is not
coming across well. all of the way down market, all of this pink area is zoned for some sort of c3. the red lines and numbers indicate the individual landmarks in the downtown area, including the aboveground trolleys. patches of darker areas are the redevelopment areas, so we would prohibit them appeared to be located down here. -- we would prohibit them up here to be located down here. that is essentially what that component of the planning code amendment is doing. i wanted to highlight the 44 individual marks downtown. 18 of those have already sold.
this would really only affect 26 properties moving forward. both the planning commission and historic preservation commission felt it was supportable, that it was a small enough number of properties and a good test case. particularly with old st. mary's church. they have undergone an extensive rehabilitation program to comply with ordnances through two stages. they need the proceeds to be able to fund the final third stage. there is a small other component of the planning code. >> -- supervisor maxwell: so, the money would go into their seismic program. >> correct. supervisor maxwell: is it going there because it cannot go anywhere else, or because that is where they wanted to go?
>> that leads the next component of the changes. they are putting their money into the property because they have to for this building to be seismically stable for the next 100 years or so. currently the program does not have any provisions as to what the proceeds of the money need to go to. technically a property owner could become eligible by selling it to another property and purchasing and lottery ticket, there is no restriction as to what the proceeds should be used for. one of the components being added to the planning code is to have a very basic requirements that whoever sells those proceeds, they will provide basic maintenance and repair plans. if there is an associated and larger project, we will have the
permits to show it. but while essentially say it guarantees do some funds left over who so that the building will be well maintained. such as checking on their roof to making sure that the building will be cleaned and maintained. we are adding that provision to the code. >> you are adding that they have to maintain the property once the rights are sold, which would include -- there is no dollar amount? >> no. supervisor maxwell: who will make sure that they did it? >> the amendment to the planning code issues, the planning code will be in charge of this. the zoning administrator will be in the seat of the plan de going into the file. technically a building is considered significant with
basic maintenance requirements. as the supervisor knows, it can be difficult to give property owners to maintain and that keep their buildings. we are trying to add certain triggers so that if the building falls into severe disrepair with maintenance issues, we can go out, you need to develop another thing? it will be up to the planning department, ultimately, for this component of the program. i know that the property owner and their representatives are here. i know that they would like to speak if you have any questions. supervisor chiu: thank you for the presentation. to my colleagues, as the supervisor of district 3, where this project, it is well along
the way of doing the seismic retrofit with additional help. all of these speculations, the planning staff took it over. i would like to thank those departments were doing a lot of work over the recent months to move forward the legislation that we have now and i feel much more comfortable with where it is currently. i would like to currently ask, as discussed, there were a couple of issues in drafting this language that i would like to clarify. right now my reading of net proceeds are for paying for ongoing maintenance in the first section of page 15. paragraphs two and, the required
reports for the planning department zoning administrator around rehabilitation for section 3 is not ongoing maintenance and i wanted to see if we could amend that language to all free concert -- concepts, for the sake of consistency. the other small at it that i would like to propose, referring to the owner of the transfer a lot and property. as i clarified with miss sullivan before, i think that it needs to refer to the same thing. these are technical amendments that i wanted to voice at this point in case any additional questions came up. is that correct? >> it should be a transfer of lot, not a property. that is the term once a property becomes eligible. was an oversight and we should
be including maintenance in the other paragraphs. supervisor maxwell: so, this is just making it all consistent? >> yes. supervisor maxwell: all right, great. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i also want to weigh in. i represent the project applicant. we have been at this for a long time. the job that the planning staff has done was absolutely comprehensive and a top notch. as the supervisor noticed, this has come a long way and is in good shape right now. i could go through the litany of how these benefits hold st. mary's, but i realize we are one of several property owners that benefit from this proposed legislation. hitting on the points that seemed to be of concern to this committee, old st. mary's is
absolutely committed to putting 100% of any proceeds is lucky enough to entitle and sell back into the property the renovations, two of the phases are 100% complete. we have removed a notice of violation, popothe total renovan price tag is going to be over $10 million. because we had to commence phase to before we have the funding for it. old st. mary's took out a loan that is accruing interest and we need to pay it back, but they are in the unique position of benefiting from this legislation and really connecting the dots between the sale of tdr's and the
application of significant invoices respecting work that was already done in phase 3 for work that has yet to be undertaken. in addition they have already gone through the extra step with a significant facility condition assessment reports. i mention that the cost of implementation would be over $700,000. we would be happy to do it, we of the second oldest landmark in san francisco, and once the work is done we will know that it is seismically safe, serving the community with on growing programs. to make sure that those programs can continue to serve, it must undertake deferred and ongoing
maintenance projects. overhead? that is without a flight. with respect to the balance of my presentation, we have a number of speakers here. charles coleman was the parish priest in charge of this project when it was first discussed. he is here, flying out to answer any questions as necessary. the project architect is also here. thank you so much. supervisor maxwell: i have a number of cards, but if anyone is on a time restraint? if not, i will just read the cards. [reads names]
come on up to the microphone. >> chair, supervisors, thank you. we only or freedom theater, a 7 cisco landmark -- we are the owners of the four film theater, a san francisco landmark. we are pleased to hear that this legislation would allow for the sale of tdr's to be sold to a buyer in a greater geographic area. making them more likely to sell. we do have concern that legislation might be used for renovation and maintenance of landmark properties only.
these three historic buildings. last year, the golden gate theater required, and we did $500,000 worth of maintenance and improvements on that building alone. but also we use the money for production support and to bring bigger and better production to the city of san francisco which is our essential mission. we do propose a handful of exceptions to the proposed legislation that would allow for the net proceedings to be
applied to one, pay down the loan if the lender requires such payment in the loan agreement, two, for the maintenance and renovation of different historic buildings that are owned or leased by the same owner, and finally, that the funds be used to assist businesses that are located within the historic building. for example, it could be used to support our production and theater business. again, thank you for listening. supervisor maxwell: i'm going to ask planning to have comments on this. thank you. >> my name is george williams and i'm speaking on behalf of spur. i was assistant director of planning in the 1980's and was very involved in the creation of the downtown plan and the creation of the t.d.r. scheme. a little bit of background. the t.d.r. scheme was developed as a mechanism for preserving a lot of the nice old buildings in the downtown.
the way we did that, we wanted to preclude the office district moving into chinatown and in the tenderloin which it was doing and move it south of market. so we came up with this scheme where we could identify buildings that we wanted to preserve which had greater development potential than the actual building on the lot and set unused development potential could be transferred to another lot. we restricted it to transfer into the area around the transbay terminal because we wanted to move development south. it worked splendidly and it's time for a comprehensive revision of the whole t.d.r. scheme. my remarks should not be interpreted as in any way in opposition to old st. mary's. they're very worthy of the scheme that has been developed, but this legislation goes far beyond what is needed to take