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. -- left in old language.

there were adjustments in section 409 of a planning codes, and if you remember back one year ago, -- in section 409 of the planning code. there was a summary of how many fees we have collected, how many in-kind improvements, so you get a global look at how our impact fee is working or is not working, as the case may become and as part of the report, we suggested there be an annual adjustment to correct for inflation. you may also recall, we did not have an automatic inflation adjustments, so many fees have grown stale and in some cases have fallen below the break that is actually appropriate for the service -- fallen below the rate. to summarize, these changes make

it clear that all adjustments for inflation must be implemented by january 1 of every year. two, that the infrastructure inflation adjustment itself must be published on november 1 each year by the capital planning committee, and also, which is not obvious in the language, that notice be given no later than december 1 every year prior to the january 1 of the adjustments taking place, so that is what all of these changes do. and then two other small technical things. we also asked that the mayor's office on housing also have their fee adjustments be published in the same report and done at the same time. you'll see some language affecting sections 413 and 450 of the planning code, -- 413 and 415. finally, there is some

additional language related to the market opctav -- octavia. unfortunately, some things were removed, and they have been put back in place. finally, there are some uncodified sections that would allow something to occur in april this year because we missed the previous cycle. that is at the very end of the legislation, and we would also exempt any fees that have been recently done. there is a city-wide impact fees study done by -- as required by the impact act, and we will not require that that phoebe adjusted -- that that fee be adjusted, but everything will be

updated as one effort in the future, and that will give the land use committee and the planning commission eight view on the total development requirements so that you can make decisions more strategically. there is one requested change that i failed to mention. we need to add on page 18 of the packet, it has to do with the timing of the mayor's office on housing, publishing their proposed annual fee adjustments. if you go to line 5 of page 18 of the legislation, instead of singing commencing on january 1, 2012, -- instead of saying commencing on january 1, 2012, we would like to change that, and continue on that line, no later than november 1 -- excuse me, december 1 of each year. so this is it a -- this is

aligning things. the report must be circulated by december 1. there was a mistake in the way this was drafted. supervisor mar: so mr. yarne, can you repeat the page and line number again? >> yes, changing january 1, 2012, and then continuing on in the sentence, where it says january 1 of each year, december 1 of each year. supervisor mar: maybe pages are not aligning with my copy. >> i am sorry. ok, section 413.6, sub b, first line, sub b.

apologies. the print out must be different. supervisor mar: ok. >> are you able to find that? section 413.6. supervisor mar: and i think on my copy, it is page 17, but i have the dates, setting different dates for the deadlines. >> that is right. do we have corrected copies on file with the clerk? -- correct copies? we want to change it from january to december 1. changing it to december 1, 2011, and then the second change changes january to december. it currently says january 1. we would like to change it to december 1 of each year. supervisor mar: ok. i think on my copy, it is page

17, 19, so there is. thank you. -- so there it is. any other comments, mr. yarne? >> no, and i am available for comments. i think the planning department has something. supervisor mar: thank you. miss rogers? >> ms. rogers, from the planning department. they heard this and recommended approval. without further modifications. supervisor mar: thank you. colleagues, are there questions? and thank you, mr. yarne for addressing the clean-up language. is there anyone from the public

who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, colleagues, on the amendments, without objection? i have a motion on the item? supervisor wiener: i move forward with a positive recommendation. supervisor mar: madam clerk, anything else? clerk: no, mr. chairman. supervisor mar: thank you, everyone. meeting is adjourned.

>> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it

anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products. >> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we