efficient. >> they have it ready to go and say, this is what i want. >> they are finding the same things happening on the phone where people call in and ask, how do i find this information? we say, go to this website and they go and get the information easily. >> a picture tells a thousand stories. some say a map

supervisor mar: the march 7, 2011, land use meeting. joining me is supervisor cohen and supervisor wiener. our clerk is -- clerk: items will appear on the march 15 board of superi answers agenda, as otherwise stated.

-- the board of supervisors and agenda, unless otherwise stated. -- the board of supervisors' agenda. supervisor mar: i also want to thank sfgtv for televising us today. could you please read item number one? clerk: an ordinance amending the zoning map. >> the board of supervisors adopted the market octavia plan on the overhead.

there were many amendments that were made, and as the market octavia plan moved, somewhere in the process, the lot outlined in block continued to show up, but it should be changed. in fact, that is the only item in your ordnance today under this item. those specific ones were changed. this is the market octavia plan with the board of supervisors, what they thought they did in 2008. supervisor mar: so this is just clearing that up?

>> that is correct. supervisor mar: questions, colleagues? supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: the property owners that have been impacted, have they been contacted? >> yes, thee mark -- the market octavia plan had extensive outreach, so that occurred, as well as the required mailed ordinance. for the ordinance in front of you today, we did another notice to the property owners of the area shown in black. supervisor wiener: have there been any responses? >> not to the planning department. supervisor wiener: thank you. supervisor mar: let's open this up to public comment. is there any member of the

public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? so moved and seconded without objection, with a positive recommendation. that means just double-check. do we need to do the committee report? -- let me just double-check. no. so moved. madam clerk, could you please call item number two? clerk: this is an ordinance amending the san francisco planning coat and the zoning control table in the upper -- san francisco planning code and the zoning control table in the

upper fillmore. >> lifting the ban on new restaurants in the upper filllmore -- fillmore district. this allows some to come into the area as a restaurant. this is in response to a 1987 piece of legislation, which banned new restaurants in the upper fillmore area, and right now, we have vacant areas. this would allow them to come into the neighborhoods and really shore up some of the empty storefronts. as part of the conditional use permit, the planning commission would also take a look at the détente usage of these potential new restaurants, -- take a look at the potential usage of these potential new restaurants. that was something that was very

important. i have met with the fillmore organization and another, which are the main merchant bodies and neighborhood. i have met with the number of restaurateur's, so we will be doing that. second of all, today, i am going to introduce an amendment to clarify some technical language in the language -- legislation regarding some of the restaurant classifications. again, a very technical amendment, not substantive. we do not have to continue it. we cannot approve it today. i would be happy to answer any questions -- we could approve it today. supervisor mar: so, supervisor

farrell, the revisions or the amendments, could you just give us a little bit about -- they are just technical, and they are not substantive, but, in general, what are the amendments, just so we know? >> -- supervisor farrell: this is where it applies, and also says that bars can come in only when they are attached to new restaurants, and it is clarify the language around that. the merchants and the neighbors were not in favor of opening it up two new restaurants only. other things were ok, -- eyeopening give-ups -- opening in upper -- it up to new restaurants only. supervisor mar: the merchants are supportive, and even though

there is fast food on here, those supported by the local merchants could be allowed. that is my understanding. supervisor farrell: when i first thought of "fast-food," i thought of mcdonald's. we would eliminate some restaurants that are typically classified as fast food in the code that we would want in the area, and there are some restaurants around pacific heights in the marine and that technically meet that definition. -- around pacific heights and the marina that technically meet that definition. s great. thank you.

i do not see any questions. let's open this up for comment. supervisor farrell, you have at least one card. supervisor farrell: denise tran. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is denise tran. we are characterized as a large fast-food restaurant, and this conversation is really relevant to me and directly impacts me and my business, and i am here to speak in support of the supervisor's legislation. i think the discussion of fast food, i think everybody always thinks of mcdonald's. i did, too. that just happens to be the characterization.

it basically means, large, being over a certain square footage, you are characterized as large, and for us, we are quick casual, meaning that we do not have servers, meaning that you come in, you order, and someone will bring your food out to you, which is very common oon f -- on fillmore street. many restaurants on fillmore street do that. and my restaurant is a vietnamese gourmet shop, and we are attempting to create 20 to 25 full and part-time jobs there, and currently what is going on is that i have a

prohibition on my use that prohibits me from getting a beer and wine license, although i am primarily a lunch location. we cannot release survive on fillmore street, and getting a beer and wine license -- [bell] >> i am sorry. i am over my time. i wrote to the planning department to ask to see how i could get this restriction removed, and i was told that currently the status quo is depth i wrote -- is that through the conditional use the process, i would have to change to a full-service restaurant first before i could apply for the beer and wine rest -- license, which does not make sense, because i do not have any servers, so i was told that if

this particular legislation passes, then i could get the type 41 license. so that is kind of where i am act, and i am hoping that you guys will support his legislation -- so that is kind of where ibm -- where i am at. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? please come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is demetrius. i am president of a musical and cultural association. we air -- are a nonprofit organization of artists, and

generally dedicated to preserving arts, culture, in music -- and music here in san francisco. we would like to fully support supervisor farrell's legislation. we think this is great not only for the upper fillmore area but for san francisco. for san francisco to maintain its status, its colón mill in world -- its culinary world, it is great to encourage these kinds of businesses, particularly as we prepare for the america's cup coming to san francisco in a few years and all of the hospitality and tourism boom that that will include. also, i would like to speak as

an entrepreneur. my friends and i own some bars and restaurants, and we would like to have the opportunity to explore this in the upper fillmore area. it may not be possible to the expense -- the extent that it could be considered, the conditional use process could be prohibitive to entry because of a long timelines associated with approval, so just as an entrepreneur who would like to eliminate barriers of entry, if possible, not just for me but for others, i think that would be great. if you could take a look at that also. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. sir? >> ♪ let's hear it for the fillmore let's give it a hand

let's hear it for land use and all your plans the budget is going to get big and grote -- gorw -- grow let's hear it for the fillmore and the plan it is going to get big and grow let's hear it for the city let's hear it for the fillmore let's hear it for the land use and ollie were city plans -- and all your city plans whoa, whoa, whoa, let's hear it for the city let's hear it for all of your

plans you are going to understand oooooooo ♪ supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else on the public who would like to speak or sing? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> there was an earlier similar ordinance in january, right around the time of the transition, and at that time, they did recommend modifications, and the supervisor did include allow large -- did include large fast- food restaurants. just for people who do not understand the definition, a large fast-food service, it is a bit outmoded to try to regulate will we can now regulate fairly well with another control, so

the planning department is in the process of revising our restaurant definitions, but we do not feel that the large fast- food definition would really be a problem in this instance, in everything would be permitted by -- and everything would be permitted by a c.u. they also thank you for your outreach. supervisor mar: it sounds like miss tran's restauranteur business is positively impacted by this legislation -- restaurant or business is positively impacted by this legislation? >> yes. supervisor mar: supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: are you able to address her? >> there is ho