what we think we know about that is that it is likely to produce a higher intensity storms. that exacerbates the flooding problem and frankly it calls on higher capacity facilities safely at the system. if we ended up by virtue of the circumstance having a little extra capacity in the system, that does not bother me at all. if we were to encourage additional costs or for that matter, if we were to downsize a pipe five years down the road that we needed to increase, that is a hugely expensive mistake to correct. without any diminution of

interest, without a great deal of knowledge, i am very comfortable proceeding with the project and developing for a long time and solving some problems that we know our real that affect people day-to-day and if it ends up with a little extra capacity in the system, i am for it. >> well, you know, i have been talking to staff and that is where i have landed ultimately and that is why i keep urging that if we do move forward with this to please continue to engage the public. we would like to do the watershed planning and introduce the lid and work towards these

common goals that we have and whether they take a change order or whatever it is, the commission would be open to that if it will show some major reduction of storm water into the system and what we can really be achieving. >> thank you. >> there's no other comments from the commissioners. >> do we have a motio>> we will. all those in favor? moving forward.

>> [inaudible] >> i am not sure that we have many questions for you. is there a motion to adopt item number 11? >> i will second. >> public comment. all those in favor. thank you. the motion carries. the next item. >> [inaudible]

>> it is there a motion to a top item number 12? >> all those in favor? >> next item? >> given the length of the meeting, we will not be doing close session items. >> we will continue the closed session. and this will be at the next meeting. >> is there other commission business? >> hearing none, this meeting is adjourned.

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 alcohol in this case, and what we recommend it is that she could try another restaurant type, just by switching the business model a little bit. it would be allowed to sell alcohol. or we suggested she could wait until the legislation sponsored by supervisor farrell was passed, and then she could see it as a large fast-food restaurant. -- she could seek it as a large fast-food restaurant. supervisor mar: i can see the vacancies from the fillmore

hardware to elsewhere. i really applaud supervisor farrell for moving this forward. any other comments, colleagues? so on the amendments, without objection on the amendments? [gavel] then, is there a motion on the item? so it is moved with a positive recommendation. thanks. thank you, everyone. madam clerk, please call item no. 3. clerk: item 3, an ordinance amending the sentences, planning code -- the san francisco planning code section 409.

supervisor mar: i believe that mr. yarne is here? >> taken as a whole, these amendments further strengthen the development impact legislation that was previously approved by the board, unanimously approved by the board of supervisors, in june of last year. actually, it was not unanimous. it was a 10-1 vote. these do a few things. first, they clean up vestiges of old language that were left over that we did not catch in the first round, and that language clarifies, these changes clarify about the issuance of first -- as defined in the building code. you'll see substantial changes throughout this draft, where we have left in all language, and it has been replaced with first construction document.