wouldn't have to widen 19th avenue. but the widening 19th avenue is in there as a condition of approval. the developer doesn't want to do it. the city doesn't really want to widen 19th avenue. they think it's wide enough. we need to fix the way in a the city does transportation -- the way that the city does transportation planning. ceqa, pages and pages and pages of totally fraudulent traffic modeling, really no attention to bicycle or pedestrian movement. that's got to change. we really need to look after the sustainable modes. and we need to really understand the impact of the project on those sustainable transportation modes. these are the most vulnerable users of the road. and they need to not get short shrift in this. we also need a model that's a little more nuanced and that understands hey, a dwelling unit doesn't always generate the same number of automobile trips. there are things you can do to reduce that or increase that. and the modeling should show that. so i would love to engage with the department. i don't know how. but this has been an issue nor ages. and you're making developers do

things that are bad for the city. and you aren't giving them credit for the things they do to mitigate those things. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul wermer and i'm up here with two things, the first one is the release of the cpmc public comment pour response to public comments comes out. can we make sure there's adequate timing? if it comes out durk the summer, we've got folks who have already got their vacation scheduled. and just getting comment in the minimum amount of time becomes very difficult. so if we could get some extension from the time it's released to the time the hearing is scheduled, that would be very much appreciated. president olague: we're going to have a minimum of 30 days. we know that so far. is that right? about a month? >> i can't remember the release date at this point. president olague: ok.

>> tentatively scheduled to be on the commission calendar on august 11. but i can't remember -- for the draft, i don't know if we tip chi do that for the final. -- if we typically do that for the final. president olague: we'll let you know. >> at least 30 days and 45 would be helpful. the second thing i would like to urge is with respect to the conditional use process. this is a very important process for residents, for the community, to manage or address potential impacts in a meaningful way. at theame time, it's extremely burdensome for small businesses who are trying to open. it can add a length of time that's distressing. i think that there are ways that this process could be improtched. and i would like to ask the department to maybe think about setting up a working group with some folks from the neighborhood associations, some folks from the small business

world, the small business commission. and planning staff to look through the issues and the legal implications of various strategies to simplify that c.u. process. thank you. >> thank you. >> sue hester, i want to follow up on two of the prior comments. on the transportation studies, it's shocking how bad our data is, one. ways that the planning department should consider getting better data is when new housing is built, the owner should have an obligation at least on the first sale to collect information and feed it back to the planning department. this was done for years on officeages. it was a requirement. board of supervisors when the downtown plan was processed. we have really bad data on where people work and where people live. and it's going to come up in one -- in a comment later on. but it should be something that

is a routine requirement on every developer of housing saying please,ness a mandate, seller, first buyer, where do they live? you know that. where do they work? and how do they get there? we really need that information on the suggestion, on the c.u. workshop. i agree with that. but i want to add another workship. i sent an email about three weeks ago and i testified on how you deal with emails. and how you deal with public records. you need to have some kind of a work session. i don't want to wait until october for a commission discussion. i think staff should do that. they know who -- who the people are to contact. those of us who are the major users of the planning department, the coalition and the neighborhood network, and have a discussion about now documents are available. i personally believe you're in violation of the law when you don't have documents available when you put notices out. there's been a court case on

that. so it's very frustrating to have a notice be up and to request documents and get back a staff response of -- we have 10 days to respond. this is for a notice in the paper or a notice posted that you don't have to give the documents. you have to do special extra credit to get documents in a meaningful time frame. and it's really hard had you have a notice going up and the documents aren't available. the staff should be prepared to release their files the minute they put a notice up. you shouldn't have a 10-day grace period to get it together or not do emails because no one knows you have to request. i'm saying every time i speak here, i'm going to say to the public, who's listening, if they're listening. i don't know if you're online right now. that you cannot rely on files at the planning department anymore. because the planning department's records are in emails. they're not in the files. and unless people request them,

they don't know all the back and forth that goes on a project and the staff has blundered into this area without any vetting on public records law. and i want a workshop on public records law and files. thank you. >> good afternoon. again, dean presna. i want to talk to you more generally about the palmer case and how it affects all the work going on. obviously the palmer case limited the city's ability to insist on and require affordable rental housing. first of all, i want you to be aware of a bill that i hope we can all agree on which is senator leno's bill. s.b. 184, which will be voted on in the senate, probably by next week. the deadline of june 3. which would effectively overturn the palmer case. and i think we can all recognize whatever our views on rental housing are, that the palmer case was -- has really put the city and put this

commission in a very ditch position when it comes to exercising your authority over these kind of projects. i mope everyone supports s.b. 184. the other thing i wanted to comment on is what appears to be a conflicting interpretation of the palmer case that is emerging. in the context, for example, of park merced, the city attorney taking a very narrow view of what palmer preempts. in the context now of voluntary agreements to provide affordable rental housing that even predate the city's inclusionary law, we see the city attorney apparently broadening significantly the scope of the palmer case to say that it actually preempts those kind of agreements as well. and i think it is essential, as commissioner borden recognized, that the public be advised as much as possible about this analysis of these cases. because from the outside looking in, the way it appears

is that the palmer case is being interpreted however it favors the project sponsor. and i realize these are difficult issues. these are complex issues. and i don't like to point fingers. but that's how these appear to be very results oriented interpretations of a very complicated area of law. and i hope as much possible that the public can be brought in on what exactly the city's position is. as to what palmer preempts. and what it doesn't. but hopefully this will become moot when s.b. 184 patches and we can get rid of this horrible decision and make these decisions how they should be made whether it's good policy to have affordable rental housing as part of these new projects. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. and i think that out of the -- what i heard today, i can already think of two hearings. so i guess we'll work with the calendar because i know the calendar is pret yes jammed

until -- pretty jammed until september. but one of the other things that i wanted to mention now, is one of my requests for the ceqa hearing is that these are the type -- the types of issues i was hoping to get into when we have the presentation from staff on ceqa. are the issues around how the department approaches transportation analysis. i mean, that's the type of detail that i'm looking for in that presentation. i'm not sure if i ever got around to communicating that with you. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: is the department aware that the association of environmental professionals is having an update of ceqa work across california coming up in oakland in a few weeks? that is really when you have the most intense ceqa oriented lawyers talking to each other. and i have participated in that. and much of it is over my head. but i have to do it. and this might be for some people exactly what they need to do in order to get the latest lowdown and also ask very critical questions which

many people across the state of california are asking each other. i'm talking the law profession at this moment. president olague: ok. i think we're on. >> commissioners, thank you. you can now start your regular calendar with item number 11. case number 2011.0172-t. and an ordinance introduced by supervisor mirkarimi concerning retail coffee stores, retail restaurants and video stores as well as additional recommendations by planning staff to consolidate compitching restaurant definitions and -- existing restaurant definitions and control. >> aaron star, department staff. the case before you is proposed legislation introduced by supervisor mirkarimi to all the restaurant definitions and article seven of the planning code. supervisor mirkarimi's aide, rob selnes is here to discuss the original impetus for the proposed legislation and that you har the presentation and

take public comment but not take action until a later date. so i'll give it over to rob for now. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thanks for taking up this matter today. my name is rob thelma. a legislative aide in supervisor mirkarimi's office. he's a member of the budget committee. and so he's tied up in the budget committee right now until -- so he asked me to come speak with you today. supervisor mirkarimi sbuchede this legislation after community groups and small business owners expressed to him that there was some onerous restrictions on locally owned self-service restaurants. it turns out the restrictions hark back to the 1970's and 1980's before there were formula retail controls. and were primarily meant to stop the spread of fast food restaurants in neighborhood commercial districts. now that there are formula retail rules, the polled rules seem confusing and clunky and

they're out of date. they now cause hardships and confusion for small self-service restaurants like cafes which are lumped in with fast food restaurants. an example of a current limitation is that they prohibit on-man site food preparation and cooking and reheing equipment in retail coffee stores without a conditional use. when supervisor mirkarimi introduced this legislation it was brought before you. you the commission asked the planning department to go back and look at restaurant definitions generally to try to make them more clear, consolidate them, make them less clunky and less confusing. so for about the past three months, the planning department has been doing some research on that. and they have a brief report for you today on that. but supervisor mirkarimi has received requests for more community input on this issue. and so we would like to get some more community input

before you take a position on the legislation. and so that's why we've asked that the planning department today give you an informational presentation and that you don't take a position on it today. and recognize that after the brief presentation today, they will be coming back before you today in early august. and supervisor mirkarimi is happy to waive the 90-day rule so that it is proper procedure. and so that it meets all the rules. and i believe the date that we identified was august 4. would be the time where -- >> that's what i remember. >> the planning department could come back before you. so i think that's about it. and aaron starr will give you a presentation on what the planning department has learned in their research. thanks very much. president olague: thank you. >> ok. to start off the presentation i have something quite unusual. i'll show you a video.

a little animation thing. so just bear with me for a moment. >> there is sound, too. we'll put the microphone down but i don't know if sfgtv has a way to play sound. >> we're not being picked up by them at the moment. >> we have to wait?

>> an exciting new restaurant concept. are there any planning issues i should be aware of? >> san francisco wants small business entrepreneurs to open new and unusual businesses to keep our city dynamic and unique. what type of restaurant and where? >> i would like to open in the hiat-ashbury neighborhood. >> to sort out the applicable rules i will need to ask a few questions. will customers order at a counter or will a waiter come to the table to take their order? >> i guess they would order at the counter.

>> and would the food be served at the counter? or at their table? >> i guess by a waiter. like a cafe. >> the planning code classifies that as a full as much as restaurant. but a cafe is more of a small self-service restaurant and large fast food restaurant. will you be serving the food in disposable wrappers? >> no. i want to use reusable plates and utensils. why does planning care if i use disposable wrappers? >> because if it's served in disposable wrappers, then you are a large fast food restaurant. since you are reusing plates you're a full service restaurant. and it allows full service restaurants but only with full norgs use which takes six months to process and $6,000 in fees. >> that's a long time and expensive and i don't think i can afford the rent on an empty space for six months. what if i served the food in

disposable wrappers? >> you would also have to have customers pick up the food from the counter. >> ok. fine. i'll have the customers pick up the food from the counter and serve my food in disposable wrappers. >> and how big is the space you would be renting? 1,000 square feet or less would make you a small self-service restaurant. above that, you would be a large fast food restaurant. >> 1,200 square feet. >> wait. it doesn't matter in this district anyway because neither one is permitted here. did you have another location in mind? >> how about a space? on upper market that's less than 1,000 square feet? >> small self-service restaurants require conditional use authorization in the upper market neighborhood. but you can open a coffee shop. >> could i sell sandwiches and bagels at a coffee shop? >> yes. as long as they are prepackaged and not toested. >> so i could sell bagels as long as i don't toast or put cream cheese on them and

sandwiches as long as i don't bake them on site or put them in a sandwich press? >> yes. that would violate the planning code and we would have to send in an enforcement officer to confiscate your toaster. >> can i serve iced cream at my coffee shop? >> only if it is served in a cup and not a cone. otherwise, we would have to send in an enforcement officer to confiscate your ice cream cones. >> are there any other rules i would have to follow? >> yes. your coffee shop cannot contain more than 15 seats with no more than 400 square feet of floor area devoted to seating. it must have a limited menu of beverages. paid prior to consumption and served at a customer as much as counter. -- customer service counter. >> thank you. this has been very informative. perhaps i should keep my job as a cater waiter.

>> you are quite welcome. i'm glad i could help. 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