Thread by @_fruchtose

Hello, world. I'm blown away by the response to my thread last night about ice cream, and how San Francisco planning works—or, uh, doesn't. This thread will explore some parts of how we got into this mess. I don't have much prepared, so this thread may surprise you AND me.

https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1271280300228632576

I'll start with the hearing itself. The Discretionary Review was item 17 on the agenda for the weekly Planning Commisison meeting. Note the bottom line in parens. This item was continued from a previous meeting.

That's normal—many items are continued multiple times.

The DR next on the agenda was continued from June 11th...

and June 4th...

and May 14th.

Last evening, it was continued again!

Each agenda item gets its own packet. The ice cream DR is no exception. It has an "abbreviated" analysis 3 pages long, but the whole packet is 219 pages long. Thank God it's a PDF—these things have to be printed for normal in-person meetings.

commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/202…

There's a state law called the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. It requires environmental review for any "discretionary" action any govt body takes.

Without an law exempting building alterations, this ice cream shop would need environmental review (seriously).

How was the ice cream shop appealed? It stems from a so-called "change of use" from retail to restaurant. That triggers neighborhood notification. It's also called 311 notification after Planning Code Section, 311 which defines it.

311 notifications result in mailers going out to all properties within 150 feet of the project site. Neighbors then have 30 days to appeal the change of use.

While the 311 notification waiting period is in effect, the Matcha n' More owners still have to pay rent.

Across the street from Matcha n' More, a few doors down from Garden Creamery, a tiny commercial space rents for roughly $3,500 per month!

When Matcha n' More started their lease is not public info. But the permit which started this whole ordeal was filed on Nov 12, 2019. Previous permits were likely filed by the bldg owner.

So MnM has been in their space for 7+ months and have probably paid at least $25K in rent.

Reminder, during that whole time, they can't make any money from their storefront. You can see why this makes restaurants more expensive. Businesses need at least $25K in the bank in case someone appeals their permit.

The permit also specifies some construction work. Renovation is expensive in SF. Installing new lighting and HVAC was estimated to cost $60,000.

There are two other permits on file for this storefront. One is for refurbishing windows to comply with the historic district rules for the property. The other is for ADA compliance, drywall, and a new ceiling.

Total cost for both permits: $81,477.

Here's a running total of costs to the business so far, before opening:

$25–35K (minimum) + $60K + $12K + $69.5K = $166K, probably more

Remember, this is all to sling two scoops of soft serve.

After the permit was filed, it was reviewed by multiple planners (info removed). The 311 notification was mailed on Feb 26 after over 3 months of City review, and the Discretionary Review application from Garden Creamery was accepted 15 days later.

I just realized that "scoops of soft serve" doesn't make sense lol

Discretionary Reviews aren't cheap. It costs $640 to file one. That's a significant investment for a small business.

The 8-page rebuttal to the DR was filed by attorney Stephen M. Williams. It's not clear what an SF lawyer costs, but it likely costs around $300 per hour. So it could easily cost $1,200 or more to write the rebuttal for Matcha n' More.

Let's talk about that 311 notice some more. It took 3 months for the City to determine it was needed. And as the DR packet itself notes, it took 83 days for the Discretionary Review to be heard by the Planning Commission—nearly 3 months.

You might be surprised to learn that elected officials know about this problem!

That's because the Board of Supervisors, which is SF's city council, has a Budget & Legislative Analyst's Office. They can research issues for district supervisors. sfbos.org/budget-legisla…

On March 5, 2019, the BLA issued a report for Supe. Mandelman on the rash of commercial vacancies in the Castro District. One major reason listed is permit approval times.

It takes an average of over 8 months for San Francisco to approve a construction permit!

That three month delay for the 311 notification? That's 𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹 for San Francisco. City planners sometimes have a backlog of work 2–3 months long.

The 311 process itself can take add 4–6 months to the time a commercial space stays vacant. Our Board of Supervisors is aware of that!

Remember that HVAC permit I mentioned above? It's still not done, because of neighborhood notification. That permit was filed seven months ago!

Oh, but it gets worse. In some districts, changing a retail space to a restaurant space requires a 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.

A CUA allows the Planning Commission to decide arbitrarily if a business can open. An analysis of an expedited review process revealed that the average wait time for a hearing before the Planning Commission takes 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 10 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴.

Bear in mind, from Matcha n' More to the Castro is a 20 minute walk. Does it make sense that in one storefront it takes 7 months to receive a permit, and a mile away it takes 10 months? Remember, this is for 𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺!

Okay, back to 311 notifications. That BLA report actually recommends replacing them with online information for neighbors. Seems pretty straightforward, right?

In August 2018, Supervisor Katy Tang passed legislation to exclude some businesses from 311 notifications in a pilot program. For political reasons, this faster approval process only applies to certain blocks in the west side of town.

sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDet…

The problem is, the determination that a business can skip the 311 process could itself be appealed to the Board of Appeals. You can see where I'm going with this.

In the case of one business, #PalmCityWines, the Planning Department accidentally told one business they could skip the 311 notification process due to confusion over where the faster process applied. A neighbor appealed.

That appeal took a grueling two-hour hearing in November 2019 to resolve, which almost bankrupted the business. (They finally opened in April 2020). I attended that meeting.

https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1194796754551525376

During that appeal hearing, Planning Department staff admitted that different interpretations of the Planning Code occur on a daily basis, because the rules are so complicated.

https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1194804826862841856

I'm getting off track. More generally, here is advice on opening a business in San Francisco from commercial real estate agents:

• Have $350–500K
• Hire an independent expeditor for tens of thousands of dollars

https://twitter.com/_fruchtose/status/1147566484316495872

Does that sound familiar? You may have seen the word 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳 in the news recently.

Oh yeah, it was in connection with the corruption of the Department of Public Works investigated 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗕𝗜.

So, let's recap:

• The City of San Francisco knows that permits take months to issue
• Small businesses pay tens of thousands of dollars a month waiting for permits
• Neighbors can pay to potentially stop a business from opening
• I haven't even gotten into "community input"

The good news is that change is possible, but it takes time. On May 28, 2020, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that a number of small business types be principally permitted.

(Of course, they still need to address change of use permits...)

It's time for me to wrap up. In conclusion: San Franciscans, please email your district supervisor. Ask them to change the Planning Code to help small businesses.

You can use this website to identify your supervisor, based on your address: sfplanninggis.org/sffind/

Thanks for reading!