Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Process Enforcement Rfp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outlines formula‑retail enforcement and says transit‑center RFP reissued after conflict concerns
Summary
Staff told commissioners that follow‑up work on formula‑retail compliance found about 11 local outlets (initial online counts inflated), prompting notices and conditional‑use referrals; staff also said the transit‑center RFP was reissued after outside agencies raised conflicts of interest, the RFP is being reformulated and some work was reassigned in‑house to meet an EIR deadline.
Planning Department staff briefed commissioners on two operational items: enforcement of the city's "formula retail" rules for a chain operator commonly referred to in the hearing as "Qwickly/Quickly," and a reissued request for proposals (RFP) tied to the city's transit center work.
On formula retail, staff said the office investigated a potential formula‑retail operator after Supervisor Jew raised neighborhood concerns. "We found out that Qwickly has hundreds of outlets throughout the country and across the world," staff said, later adding that local counts on a website initially showed 12 locations but department checks suggested 11. Staff reported sending notices in March alleging violations and said five locations may have opened before the formula‑retail ordinance, leaving six that may need conditional‑use authorization or closure; some determinations are under appeal to the Board of Appeals. Staff also emphasized coordination with federal, state and local authorities as appropriate.
Commissioners asked whether conversions and typical building‑inspection or permit referrals would catch retail conversions; staff said conversions should generally be routed to planning but acknowledged cases where businesses change operators without completing permitting. Commissioners cautioned against extended back‑and‑forth at the dais when investigations involve appeals or enforcement matters.
On procurement and the Transit Center RFP, staff reported that an RFP originally issued in December was reissued after outside agencies identified potential conflicts of interest among likely respondents. Planning staff said they reformulated the RFP, reassigned some tasks to in‑house staff so preliminary work could begin, and expected to award contracts in late July. The amount cited for the RFP/contract was $430,000 and staff said they still expect to meet the EIR schedule for a December 2008 target.
Separately, commissioners raised broader process questions about when RFPs and contract reissuances should be brought to the commission and asked staff to prepare a memo or an informational briefing on departmental practices and the timing of RFP notices.
