Supervisor Aaron Peskin plans to introduce legislation Tuesday that aims to speed up San Francisco’s process for issuing conditional use permits, a factor cited by many businesses as a reason for delays in opening shop and a potential contributor to the number of empty storefronts in the otherwise prosperous city.

Peskin’s legislation aims to expedite the time it takes to get a hearing date with the Planning Department after a business applies for a conditional use permit to 90 days. The average time the city takes to process conditional use permits can take months, sometimes nearly a full year. Many businesses are still on the hook to pay rent to a landlord during that time, adding considerable cost to opening a new business in the city.

Part of the delay has been the lack of coordination between city agencies.

“Over the past couple of years, I’ve convened a series of small-business roundtables where many merchants complained about the lack of responsiveness from departments when it comes to issuing permits,” Supervisor Peskin said in an email. “This legislation is about putting their feet to the fire and having consequences for not doing their jobs with the urgency that we should expect.”

“When small business owners comply with requests for information and submit their applications, they deserve the same expedient response that departments afford well-resourced developers,” he added.

In San Francisco, conditional use authorizations are sought to change the use of a place, from store to restaurant for example, or even from cafes to restaurants — the latter requiring a full kitchen.

The move is another step to streamline the city’s burdensome permitting process. Former Supervisor Vallie Brown and Mayor London Breed introduced a measure that passed last summer to ease zoning code requirements and eliminate duplicative inspections.

Peskin’s legislation goes a step further and asks the city Planning Department to develop rules and regulations that will require the agency to issue a hearing date after a completed form has been filed. Fees for conditional use permits can be hundreds or thousands of dollars, depending on the size of the project.

The legislation also puts the onus on the Planning Department to screen for applications that are eligible for priority processing.

Mattia Cosmi is one business owner who might benefit. The Chronicle wrote in June about his efforts to open a second North Beach location of his restaurant, Italian Homemade. The location formerly housed Caffe Roma, which had permits as a limited restaurant. Cosmi submitted a change of use permit for a full restaurant — where food can be cooked on site — in July and is still awaiting a hearing date from the Planning Department. Meanwhile, his business remains closed.

If passed, the legislation outlines that a year after the effective date, the Planning Department is responsible for a report showing the number and percentage of eligible applications that are considered by the agency and, “the reason or reasons why eligible applications were not heard within 90 days, if any.”

Most businesses seeking a conditional use permit will be eligible for priority processing except for chain stores, which are required to obtain a conditional use permit before opening anywhere in San Francisco. Other types of businesses that won’t benefit from the newly introduced legislation include smoke shops, adult entertainment establishments, medical cannabis dispensaries, wireless phone stores, drive-up facilities and some financial services.

“My staff shouldn’t have to bird-dog every inspection request and application timeline and checklist to make sure departments are responding with accurate and timely information,” Peskin said. “This is one additional oversight tool to ensure that the departments are contributing to the overall toolbox for small business success.”

Peskin has also backed a tax on vacant storefronts in neighborhood shopping districts, meant to discourage landlords from holding stores empty in hopes of higher rents. That tax measure, Proposition D, is up for a vote in March. The Board of Supervisors recently voted to expand the number of districts that would be subject to the tax.

Shwanika Narayan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: shwanika.narayan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @shwanika