0110592, planning code, inner clement, dr. clement, and -- outer clement, and geary. it will allow eating and drinking uses as principally permitted uses if the total street frontage dedicated to such use does not exceed 30% and as conditionally permitted uses if the total street frontage dedicated to such use exceed 30%. remove the prohibition on large fast-food restaurants and prohibit formula retail pet supply stores and formula retell eating and drinking establishments in the subdistricts. many video stores a principally permited use on the ground floor. permit a how -- height increase of 5 feet to permit tall brown- floor ceilings in the zoning district.

make an environmental finding. presentation today by joseph smooke, legislative aide to supervisor eric mar. president o'brien: welcome. >> good evening. joseph smooke, legislative aide to supervisor mar. a have been working on this legislation. my colleague was working on this for a number of months. i am picking it up from her to present to you tonight. , do lovage is here as well in the audience. -- tom radoullovitch is here as well in the audience. the supervisor presented to you a couple of months ago the first part of this legislation. we do appreciate a letter of support from july 7 as a result of that.

we are still working out the balance of the legislation and has implications toward the strong -- the small business community. we have had enormous support and input from clement street and are happy to bring new this legislation -- you this legislation. we've taken under advisement some recommendations for amendments and modifications that ms. rogers brought to our attention. the first is to more narrowly defined the definition of the

formula retail pet supply stores to limiting the prohibition to stores that dedicate a majority of the floor area to cut supplies. currently, the language is broader than that. its prohibition on any formula retail pet supply -- just making sure it is clear that anyone -- for example, there is a form of a retail store that carries pet supplies, but it is a very small part of the business. there are retail establishments that are here to testify. another modification we are looking at is there is currently legislation in place that allows by right in the inner clement area one more food and drinking

establishment. when we drafted the legislation, we had not looked at the inner clement establishment. currently, with the addition with this further establishment, what we are proposing is to allow this additional food and drinking establishment to be put in place by right, per previous ordinance, and subsequent food and drinking establishments would be established through a conditional use permit process.

that is pretty much it in terms of modifications. i want to highlight the increase of the retail floor height in the 50's it zoned parcels. we think that will go a long way toward enhancing the retail frontage. i'm sorry. that is actually just for geary. i think we have a good package for supporting small businesses in the richmond district. president o'brien: there are a few questions for you. do not go anywhere. commissioner clyde: was the one

restaurant -- was that at the request of the neighborhood? did the request this restaurant be allowed to come in? >> this allowed three additional drinking establishments by right. there is still one more that can be allowed by right. that will bring us over the 30% saturation of food and drinking establishments. after that, it would be conditional use. commissioner yee riley: on the ground floor, it allows addition of 5 feet? with that also be added to the total limit of the building? >> it would be added to the total limit of the building, but only applicable to the ground floor. let us say a developer wanted to

make release small floor heights to try to squeeze an additional floor in. we would not be allowed. >>8 40 foot limit would go to 45 and a 50 foot limit would go to 55. >> we got a little confused about this in committee. the 5 ft. can only be added to the ground. >> that is correct. >> yes it is. i just wanted to check with planning staff. it is written that way. president o'brien: we did not think it was -- >> we were a little confused.

president o'brien: we could not tell when we read it if it was saying that you could raise the height of the building in order to accommodate the house -- a high on the ground floor. >> the 40 foot height limit becomes 45 feet. the 50 foot height limit becomes 55 feet. the total height of the buildings in the 40 foot zone becomes 45. in the 55 foot zone, it becomes 55. but that can only be applied to the ground level. the significance there is that we are not advocating for an increase in intensity of use in the district, meaning we are not going to have an increase in the amount of residential that is allowed, or even the amount of square footage of commercial that is allowed. it is just to enhance the ceiling height of the ground level so it can be a more

gracious and more flexible use. in restaurants that have a more mechanical use, you can have a higher ceiling height. for other businesses that want increase ceiling height, it just allows more flexible use of the space. president o'brien: so a building is going to be 5 feet higher, and the residential will be on the upper floors, and those floors -- those residential floors will still be the same height as they were prior to this legislation, but the ground floor space will be higher? >> that is correct. it is as you described. commissioner clyde: i appreciate this thoughtfulness. i have seen very small storefronts that were put in a long folsom street that are squished little spaces that are difficult to manage and rent,

and what they do to the streetscape. i also think this is consistent with the wisdom of the past. it builds our beautiful area, ground floor spaces. these spaces are well ventilated. they are cool on hot days the state's much more energy efficient than people might know. i appreciate this. it will do a lot for our newly created commercial corridors. >> would you have a short 427548 retail level, wants to put an awning are other business identifying features on the outside, it decreases the presentation area you have.

it is going to increase the advantage of the storefront area. commissioner clyde: it increases your air and you're like. -- your light. commissioner yee riley: last week, we learned was not very obvious to us the total footage. you might want to take another look at. president o'brien: other commissioners? we will open it up to public comment. do we have any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i guess we are ready for a motion. >> i will moat -- vote to

approve our recommendation of this item. president o'brien: all those in favor? any objections? seeing none, item is approved. next item, please. >> discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on the planning department proposal, planning code zoning self- service restaurants, retail copy stores, and video stores. we have a presentation by aaron starr. >> the legislative sponsor, supervisor mirkarimi, he and his staff were not able to be here tonight. this was scheduled as an informational briefing for you, all of this is a generalized as an action item.

the supervisor has requested that no official action be taken tonight. the planning commission is going to be hearing this on august 4. we will have another opportunity to read here it after the commission meeting for the official recommendation or the official response from the small business commission. that said, you can direct staff, if there are any comments to pass on to the planning commission, directed to aaron starr -- direct it to aaron starr, or you can direct us to -- to write some recommendations for the planning department to consider. >> hello. i am with the planning department's staff.

i am going to present to you the proposed legislation introduced as part of the planning department recommendation. i will start by going over current recommendations and finally the staff proposal. currently, there are 13 definitions for eating and drinking uses in the planning code. mirkarimi's legislation would modify three of those -- retail coffee stores, self-service restaurants, and large fast food restaurants. the fast food restaurants are currently differentiated by the total square footage and number of seats, limited to one dozen

square feet and 56. also, coffee shops are not permitted to have on-site food preparation or equipment to reheat food and prepare meals. large self-service restaurants are not permitted in and eight neighborhood district, and small self-service restaurants and video stores require conditional use authorization. what this legislation would do is maintain the current use definitions and not modify the definitions. it would change the name of large fast-food restaurants to large self-service restaurants. it would modify the definition of a large self-service restaurant, and it would modify the use size. in the existing limit for the

castro, it is just under 2000 square feet. any self-service restaurant below that threshold would be classified as a small self- service restaurant and anything above would be classified as a large self-service restaurant. the legislation would remove the prohibition of on site food preparation, cooking, and we heating equipment in retail coffee stores. currently, they are not allowed to have a toaster or a crock pot or a penny press -- panini press. this would conditionally permit large self-service restaurants in the inner sunset commercial district, where they are currently not permitted. it would require that mechanical noises be confined on the premises. based on recommendations from the planning commission as well as considerations we had and

comments from neighborhood groups are community members, we have decided to use this as an opportunity to look at our definitions and do a wholesale revamping or recommend we would prefer to see change in the code. in addition to the required 20 days' notice in the paper, we send an e-mail notifying people of the proposed legislation. that happened on april 20, 2011. we send it to 180 different recipients. we can do went up reach meeting, as was said earlier last week, to go over the proposal with stakeholders. the department recommendation would reduce the total of definitions in both articles 17 -- in article 7 and 8. it would be restaurant,

restaurant ltd., and bar. this would be based on the types of alcohol that each use is permitted to have. it would integrate standard approval to be consistent with the standard controls we already require on a restaurant gives conditional use authorization. it would place all the conditions into article 7. currently they are in article 7 and article 8, and article 8 dedicates mixed these districts. it would remove video store as a used category. we just see this as a dying retail use, and there is no reason to lump it out from other retail uses. at one point, there was a concern about that, so they tried to control it. it would also maintain existing controls for each neighborhood commercial district.

so here is a graphic that illustrates our methodology. we take the uses that currently do not allow on-site alcohol consumption. we put them under the restaurant limited control. the definitions, one in article 7 and won an article 8, would be grouped into one, in article 7. finally, for those other three, they would be considered restaurants. this just so out -- shows the tuckahoe consumption issue. -- alcohol consumption issue. the existing controls were developed in 1987 and were to address concerns over restaurants displacing neighborhoods serving retail uses and proliferation of chain of fast-food restaurants. since that time, several things

have changed, including for miller retell clothes and section 312 neighborhood notification, which requires when there is a change of use for neighbors to be notified three days before we approve a permit. the department believes these are much more effective ways to address the concerns that we still continue to have. also, the current definitions are overly prescriptive. they dictate how small business has to operate without real public benefit. the department believes that reducing the number of definitions weather than changing the current definition allows images to change for a current market without changing restaurant unit. but adding stylized controls, neighbors will have greater assurance that newt restaurants will not be overly restricted by

neighborhood character. finally, using the non- residential use controls ensures that new restaurants are businesses that come in would be in character with each ncd. the department proposes to options for the implementation. we have these new definitions. the first we would to require any additional use. you probably have a chart in there with my staff report.

so each neighborhood has a tailored control for that. the second option, the department's preferred option, would allow the least impact for use to be principally permitted in any neighborhood commercial district. it would require restaurants to be either conditional use or principally permitted use depending on the existing controls for instance, if a full-service neighborhood requires conditional use, the full-service category would require principal use. the department recommendation is to reduce the total number of definitions and standards conditions of approval, remove the video store definition, and maintain tailored control for neighborhood commercial districts. the mission district may want to

adopt option 2 for the entitlement process. i would be happy to take questions for you. >> i love this idea. i know, is here and i want to acknowledge in front of this commission -- i know tom is here, and i want to acknowledge in front of this commission his contribution. he has come in front of the merchants. this is something that has been needed as part of the cleanup. i just want to think him in front of this commission. i am excited. i am glad to finally have somebody taking it up. i also want to commend -- he is not here this evening, but supervisor mirkarimi.

this is something in my opinion that is long overdue. i appreciate the work the stuff of planning has done to come up with this formula. i think it will help different neighborhoods. in the past year, there has been legislation for union st., castro street, and noe valley to take some restrictions of bars and restaurants. you are starting to see a lot of vacancies out there because some people are shopping online. i think this will help all around. i cannot tell you enough how much i like this. commissioner dooley: after attending the meeting last week, i am prepared to support this. but i am just going to -- i see a little change in my one request, which is just on page four. if you can just explain this one more time. i feel a few of those words were

added back in in a different way, the part that says existing controls attached to restaurant uses, indicated by an asterisk, in the planning code would remain for the most part. >> before the most part -- some neighborhoods will or will not want those controls. the mission merchants do not want the prohibition on fast food restaurants. with this legislation, there would be no fast food restaurant definition. things like that we would not continue to include, because they are irrelevant now. commissioner dooley: so if the neighborhood had controls they wanted to continue that would be allowed by right? >> we would certainly try to find a way to adapt the new definition to those controls. for the most part, do we have set up the definitions, everything folded neatly into it.

commissioner clyde: first, i would like to just echo my fellow commissioners, commissioner adams, and thank you for bringing this forward. i know it represents a great amount of work and i think it is appropriate cleanup that will streamline, which is one of our charges as a commission, doing business in san francisco and make it more comprehensible. i just have a technical question for you. what is nc-3 and nc-s. >> nc-3 is neighborhood commercial, moderate space, including geary street. nc-s is -- commissioner dooley: a shopping

center? like patrol -- petrero center? >> [unintelligible] commissioner dooley: and nct- 3? >> neighborhood commercial transit, moderate scale. commissioner dooley: like valencia or mission? >> copper market. commissioner dooley: -- upper market. commissioner dooley: thank you. i believe this is responsive to the way businesses are operating now and the growth in new industries. we have light manufacturing would like to combine with retail. we have food service that needs catering. we are doing combined kitchens, combined businesses in larger spaces. this is an opportunity for some

of those incubator food businesses to locate out in the neighborhoods, so the neighborhoods have more services. i think it is very responsive to emerging business models. it is nice to see we are making room for those emerging business models in neighborhoods that really want them. i would like to thank you for that from the small business community. thank you. president o'brien: seeing no other commissioners to talk, i will open it up to public comment. >> leslie lenhart, union street association. we feel this is very good and we support it. i do of a question i would like to ask this gentleman.

on page four, there is a typo or i am not quite understanding what this means. if you go to involving planning code and go down to the second paragraph within that unit, it says now all formula retail establishments require a use hearing before the planning commission even if there is already -- does that mean formula business? is that a typo? that is a typo. the union street association would like to go on the record as supporting this piece of legislation. president o'brien: thank you. next speaker. >> michael williams, union street neighborhood commercial