coffee shop? >> only if it is served in a cup and not a cone. otherwise, we would have to send an officer to confiscate your cones. you cannot contain more than 15 seats and more than 400 square feet devoted deceiving. it must have a limited menu of beverages. serve that a customer service counter. -- served at a customer service coutner. >> this has been very informative. perhaps i should keep my job as ta cater waiter. >> i am glad i could help. [laughter] president olague: amazing. bravo. funny.

>> thank you for that indulgence. we thought we would try it. the current restaurant definitions are confusing and don't always make a lot of sense. it may seem absurd, but many potential small businesses have had similar conversations with planners, some of which i have been a part of. i will start my presentation by going over the main points of the proposed legislation followed by the department opposed a proposal and rationalization. there are a total of 13 line- item definitions for eating and

drinking in the planning code. it would also modify controls for video stores. small self-service restaurants and fast-food restaurants are differentiated by the square footage and a number of seats. fast food restaurants are classified as anything above that. coffee shops are not permitted to have the equipment to cut food or reheat food or prepare meals. large self-service restaurants are not permitted in the commercial district and small self-service restaurants and video stores require a conditional use authorization. supervisor mirkarimi's proposed legislation will not modify the definitions.

it will change the name of fast food restaurants to large self- service restaurants. it would modify the definition of large and small self-service restaurants by tying the definition to the nonresidential use side. for example, the existing nonresidential use size limit is just under 2000 square feet. if any self-service restaurant would be classified as a small self-service restaurant, anything above that threshold would be classified as a large self-service restaurants. it would remove the prohibition of on-site food preparation. it would permit small self- service restaurants and video stores, conditionally permit in the neighborhood districts where they are currently not permitted and require that mechanical noise and vibration be confined to the premises.

they've got action from the planning commission, findings and comments from neighborhood groups, the department is using this opportunity to put forth its own recommendation of how to simplify existing restaurant definitions. the department sent out an e- mail that will outline the legislation and the proposed recommendation to neighborhood groups and other interested parties. the average e-mail was sent to approximately 180 recipients. the department's proposal goes further than the proposed legislation. it will make the process easier for small businesses. the proposal would reduce the total number of line-item definitions in both articles 7 and 8 to three restaurants. this consolidation would be based upon the type of alcohol license each is permitted to

have. it would integrate standard conditions of approval consistent with standardized conditions. it would place all definitions under article 7 and the district would reference to them. it would remove the video store use categories that would be covered by retail as it used to be. this graphic shows the different uses going into the proposed new definition. and this graphic shows what they are based on. the bar has on side of the wholesale and liquor with no food service and the restaurant has the full liquor license.

the department is proposing these changes for several reasons. the controls were developed over concerns of restaurants displacing private island [unintelligible] staff will use these controls more effectively and address the main concerns. the current definitions are overly prescriptive. the dictate how small businesses have to operate in order to be compliance with planning code without public benefit. the department believes that reducing the number of definitions allows restaurants to adapt to changing market while still controlling for the most impact. having standardized conditions, business owners will know the rules of front and neighbors will have greater assurances

that they will not be overly disruptive. and using existing controls that are tailored to control the size of the new restaurant will make sure that they are in character. the department proposes to options for the entitlement process. the first option will require a conditional use if is currently requires a c.u. or is not permitted. optiopn 2, the preferred position allows the least impact full use to be permitted in our own neighborhood commercial district. restaurants can either be principally permitted gordon did not existing controls were

further restaurants. the department was a recommendation is to reduce to that standard conditions of approval, remove the condition from the planning cut, maintain controls and additional districts. there is a fast foods of district there. and about option 2 for the entitlement process. president olague: i wanted to recognize regina, dick andt this time. from the small business commission. gosh i want to first acknowledge that the small business commission supported the first piece of legislation,

and to express our great appreciation to you to take a look at the great number of definitions and to streamline its. i have not had a chance to digest all of the options yet, but i have been mindful for option #1 for a certain amount of our restaurants. a limited restaurant condition. just making a note of that, but we really look forward to working with the commission on this and we're extremely appreciative that we are moving in that direction of simplifying this for our businesses. everyone to offer our support in terms of outreach. president olague: i did speak with committee members.

i am not sure how we're supposed to a knowledge people that were in office before, but he is interested in engaging in some of these conversations as some of these other members of the public as well. i am grateful you will be engaged with our staff and seeing that those conversations occurred. love is the calendar with your commission? >> it will be calendared. president olague: hopefully, it will happen before august or whenever it is. >> i will let this that know when it will be before our commission. president olague: a couple of speaker cards. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. that might fit more in the context following the presentation. we looked at what we thought was the original presentation and the changes in restaurant definitions with alcohol licenses. i would like to have more discussion before it goes forward. i like to raise the issue that for the pacific heights residents' association, the option 1 c.u. is very important. there is a presumption that the use of all alcoholic beverages on site is the determining factor. there are many factors that determines how it interacts with the neighborhood and the surrounding residences. for example, on pine street by fillmore. people stopped double parking in

traffic lanes to pick up some bread. this is honking, swerving, traffic safety. it is an inappropriate location for that type of service. but this would permit a. i recall my graduate school days in cincinnati when we would go get chile at to 30 in the morning. again, no alcohol. size, location, saturation. these are all important factors in have nothing to do with an alcohol permits. i hope we can also view can -- and do some constructive work. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. we worked with supervise mirkarimi of this ordinance. i want to applaud the staff's work on this in your direction to them. a lot of them don't make sense, especially self-service full- service. most of the restaurants are self service but if you read the definition, i think what they thought they were trying to do is to stop a fast food places from an opening up. these additional restrictions are usually on a self service. there are restaurants that are all self-service restaurants. a lot of the food is great. and may not be healthy food, but it is fresh and high-quality food. it is reasonably affordable.

we should really open up the city and the that kind of creativity. the other thing, of course, rest fronts fulfill a different role in people's lives right now. busy people increasingly rely on restaurants the the war for take-out. it is more of a popular thing, i think. i just wanted to fly the few issues for consideration. rather than having a c.u., there is a circuit breaker or soft cap idea. will aim at 20 percent, i think. that is probably too low. but restaurants are principally permitted until a block of saturation.

then they become conditional. it would address a lot of the concerns about too many restaurants. and the other thing and it might do is encourage trust runs to not dominate certain blocks. if i move somewhere else, i will go down here where there are fewer restaurants. you get them to spread out a little bit. it is something we are working on to loosen the controls in other neighborhoods. right now, the additional controls in the district's only apply for the most part to the locally owned restaurants. we think they have outlived their usefulness. do we really need these anymore? he will have to do something if you get rid of the full-service definition.

americans don't want any more. president olague: thank you for your work with staff on this. >> i believe something should be done. the past the -- does it pass the abc laws. this is over saturated. you have to balance what you're looking at. they are the expediters for these restaurants. we have a new one, it is doing a very bad job and breaking the law which starts problems with

neighbors. we got to restaurants to open up within two months. five blocks away. one has the police called all the time. and you have to start looking at how you mediate the problem. we have something similar to market street. it is young people, a-z. is pretty brutal to the neighbors. this has to be all considered in this plan. i think a narrowing in doubt as a good idea and seeing if we can stop confusing the process, but we have to look at these others. i believe that the department is not in the job of collecting

fines when bad offenses happen and they go against the rules and regulations of this commission and this department. just make it legal. this is why we are having problems. i will discuss that at a later date and in detail. but this all goes into the restaurant industry. and for someone who has worked off and on for 30 years, their great managers and there are very bad ones. >> any more public comment on this item? >> i support the idea of revamping the regulations for fast-food establishments. as he listened, a lot of these things are misapplied these

days. fast food and coffee are different things. and regarding retail, we are in a different world out. we are not in the world, we were in 10 years ago. retail has been under attack by the internet. recant mortar establishments are being supplanted by people that can order whatever they want and get it delivered to their door. the brick and mortar retail establishments are going out of business had a thing that is why more restaurants are supplanting those locations. there are less and less uses that are viable these days. if there are more restaurants, it is because there is less retail. thank you.

>> in the afternoon, commissioners. very happy to be here harriet in general, looking at the legislation, a lot of the things that we support in life, we look forward to working with the staff. one area that i think might have some concern is if you have 1300 fillmore. a great place to eat. they would be called a bar. the wayfare tavern, these are becoming bars. that definition is awkward and we would like to work with you to find a way -- the direction you're going makes some sense. what we see as a fine eating establishments that provides mixed cocktails and a bar.

and that is the definition we can work together on. thank you for the efforts. president olague: additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. the oldest and one of the bigger associations in san francisco. on behalf of our association, of like to put in a couple of comments. we feel strongly that the fast food said district has really outlived its usefulness. second of all, fast food, taquerias, coffee shops are a

huge part of the culture and the neighborhood. we like to see some of the shackles lifted and for things to be made a little bit easier. that is the long and short of it. i appreciate your time. president olague: public comment is closed. commissioner moore: i think we are at a good start. announcing other people to comment and interact, that is really where this is going. it is open for everybody to step in. i like to comment on the video that i think is totally wonderful. we ourselves have been in the middle of the complications. who made this video? you did?

where did you learn to do that? >> it is a website that says if you can type, you can make a movie. you just type in the text and it renders it for you. you can put their clothes and hands going up - quotes and have their hands going up. -- commissioner moore: congratulations for that extra skill. together with the invitation, i commend you for doing it this way. i very much appreciate that. commissioner borden: i wanted the staff to clarify some things. it is something in the staff report that i have also seen. we have been talking about

definitions and it sounded like a restaurant and a full liquor license would be considered a bar. in the chart, you show that a bar is something that doesn't serve food. >> once you get a full liquor license, the planning code considers it a us currently. if you are a full-service restaurant and you do this, we will deny that application. >> it is a little concerning in the sense that full liquor licenses are very much restaurants. i don't want to make it more complex, but it concerned me in

the sense that it is different. it would be a better determination, i am not trying to add another category. >> i think they have different liquor license types. if you are a bonafide eating establishment, [unintelligible] commissioner borden: i don't want to add an extra category, but if there is a way to make the restaurant distinction consistent with that of abc, it would be easy in some way. i don't know if that is possible, but it is more clear to people in general where they stand.

>> one thing that they voted on recently was to allow bars only in conjunction with full-service restaurants. that is a use of these hash marks on the end of certain -- commissioner borden: it is something to think about, how we can pull that out. that is one thing that concerned me. that is something that mr. warner touched on. it doesn't have to be the liquor license that makes it a great actor. he said the same thing. this is something the planning department and the planning cut cannot control. there is the bigger issue about whether or not a restaurant as a problem and the neighborhood has more to do with the operator and how they treat the neighborhood

and treat what they are supposed to do as an operator. i don't know if this is something that the small business commissioned a g in withg dera and -- working with the grgra and others to make sure they're daeling -- dealing with traffic issues, and noise issues that may not be specific to the girl licenses but have major impacts. we need to put conditions of approval of the happens to be a conditional use. >> one of the petitions -- knowing, trash receptacle, pressure on the street in front of the house -- noise, trash receptacle, trash on the streert

t in front of the house. it is technically in place now, it is not just listed. those are in different parts of the city code. in the, the public health. these are the rules that you have to abide by. commissioner borden: even for restaurants that are not going c.u. process. to the extent that they can help us in businesses and working to promote these sort of policies will be helpful. again, the issues that you often hear about restaurants are the verse and it is related to actual impact have nothing to do with the planning code. codifying in a way that's easy to find. the other issue, i liked the

idea of 30%. i am not saying it is the right number, but doing a percentage cap as opposed to a numerical cap. it became quite a problem, they set in number and then it changed. i would say that what is really interesting, because they have so many viable restaurants, and every restaurant every day of the week is all packed. and also the retail wasn't as impacted. because of the people there during the day, there is an advantage of having a vibrant restaurant corridor. it is an important -- the union street did not have a lot