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 district and others. having been involved in the legislation when union street first did a moratorium to get

their lot -- their legislation strict about, i did a use survey. the restaurant business -- these buildups have been really strapped because of this micromanaging of our and cds -- ncd's. i attended one with the supervisor alioto-pier once, and she said we are doing this to the point of insanity. it takes restaurants a lot of money and almost a year to get to opening their doors and it is debilitating to them. anything we can do to streamline the process will help these guys, these small business owners, come in and set up camp. i support this, and so does the

ncd. president o'brien: thank you. any more public speakers? public, disclosed. commissioner clyde: i would just like to go back to the two options, the one with the existing use categories and if they are moving into another category. i would like to support the least restrictive option. i do not think they should have to go through a conditional use. it is a form of grandfathering. the change of talk a great -- if it is not serving alcohol, it stays a restaurant, so there is no cu. we do have a number of self- service cafes that also have beer you can take to your table. we also have little bellies were you can buy a beer and sit down

-- we also have little bistros where you can buy a beer and sit down. i do not want these little businesses to endure any cost because of the change in their definition. i do not think they should need a cu to move in their categories. >> i do not think anyone would have to go to the process. everyone is grandfathered in. if you are categorized currently as a small self-service restaurant, you would not just become a restaurant. -- now just become a restaurant. this is only for new ones. commissioner clyde: so it is by right without alcohol, and with alcohol, subject to the neighborhood controls and distinct needs of the district? >> exactly. there is room for variation in

between the options we have. certainly for commercial districts you might want something else. that was just too methodologies -- two methodologies we came up with to transfer. commissioner clyde: i still support the least restrictive process. commissioner dooley: when are we going to see the legislation? >> it would be drafted by the city attorney's office. all will have to provide more text. in our presentation to the commission, we will do that to clarify some things and make sure we are not leaving the ambiguous statement mentioned earlier, being more specific about that. president o'brien: anybody else? during the outreach, were there any negative comments from any party, in the neighborhood representative?

>> by far, most people have been very supportive. there has been some questions about what the change would do two specific neighborhood commercial districts, and i have for -- and they have worked hard to maintain a certain image in their neighborhood. we are trying to reassure them that our intent is not to get rid of those controls, but just to make it -- someone said micromanaging. cannot micromanage how business operates so much. president o'brien: it is not an action item, necessarily. >> it is not an action item. if there is any comment or suggestion you want to direct to the planning commission as they hear it on august 4 -- will the legislation be ready by august 4? >> we present a recommendation

to the commission. they take that recommendation or do not. the supervisor can opt to put that into the legislation. that is when it would be officially drafted, after their boat. president o'brien: i would like to go on record for thinking supervisor -- thanking supervisor mirkarimi for this thought process. i think we should send a positive statement back to the supervisor's office of this hearing, an appreciation of you being here and presenting. if somebody would like to put something out here. >> could we do it in the form of a letter of support for the legislation to the planning department? >> you could ask staff to direct a letter of support for the direction. but, again, the official piece of legislation with the changes has not been drafted yet.

>> i think you have directed comments and made statements to aaron starr, and we can pass that on to supervisor mirkarimi. you are welcome to direct staff to say you would like a formal letter saying we support the direction of this and look forward -- president o'brien: there is a bigger picture for me, and that is respecting the fact that all legislation is supposed to come before the business commission, which some supervisors and to ignore. we hope more supervisors will follow that example. that is what i wanted to put something there, thinking him for bringing it to our attention and allowing us to hear it, and secondly that we support in principle what he is doing here. >> you are welcome to make a

motion to that. president o'brien: as president, am i allowed to make a motion? >> i move. >> i second. president o'brien: anybody object? do you have that? ok. seeing none, the motion is approved. thank you very much. next item. >> item 10, director's report. >> commissioners, due to the long meeting last month, you do not have a written report. i just wanted to provide you with an update with our may and

june numbers. i will be reporting out our annual numbers, based upon the city's fiscal year, and july to june. we just closed out our fiscal year 2010-2011. we are up 7% for may and 6% for june in terms of our client assistance. for the year ending fiscal year 2010-2011, we ended up with a 2% increase over the previous year, although we had a 7% reduction in our office hours. i am happy to say during the at- bat process through the budget we have had one poll -- add-back process through the budget, we have had one full-time member added back to staff. i think commissioners -- thanks

commissioners adams and dooley for speaking to supervisors and with that approach we were able to get that position added back in. i think our simple but targeted approach worked. there will be plenty of other opportunities for commissioner participation. we do want to expect -- express appreciation on that and. i am awaiting confirmation for when i can place the position of the job posting for announcement, which i anticipate will probably happen in the next couple of weeks. i want to provide a quick legislative update. i am going to summarize some of

them. i am not going to speak to all of them. the ordinance, which we have a hearing on last month -- i think because of the hearing, the initial schedule date for this item to be heard at the government audits and oversight committee was on june 23. that did get extended out for more time and input from the business community. this item has now been scheduled for july 14 at government audit and oversight. at this time, we do not have indication there is going to be in the amendment or modification. limited life performance -- i want to let you know that this item was also heard that the entertainment commission and the planning commission. both commissions recommended approval, including all the nc

district and south of market. supervisor elsbernd has said he wants to include the west portal district, so now that will be included. it is my understanding that supervisor kim is looking at some modifications for south of market around the nc area, and definitely areas around the west of soma area. but that is still being formulated. this item has not been scheduled yet in committee. i think it is probably due to waiting for those amendments to come forward. very pleased that all three commissions have the same recommendation. that is good. the others i will let you read. i want to provide some updates on their ada.

i did a presentation with urban solutions on survival tips for small business. my topic was on doing ada improvements and the topics one could use to bring a business to compliance and prevent a lawsuit. on june 30, working solutions, the micro lender who manages the loan fund, it did a presentation for their loan recipients. i really want to express my appreciation for the leadership and the fourth thought for the micro lender -- forethought for the micro lender. we are educating businesses that have staff to work with loan recipients before receiving their loans around if they are going into a brick and mortar if

there are any liabilities. it helps to insure their assets. it is a dual thing of caring about their business and insuring their assets. the gdra is offering a discounted inspection for all new members as a means of helping get the word out. we have our intern, catherine burton, who is a hastings law student. i am working on having her compile as the role of a list of businesses that have received lawsuits in san francisco only since 2002. she is also going to be working on updating our website, the content on our website page.

there is a lot more we can have. we met with the deputy director for programmatic access with the mayor's office on disability. there are some new guidelines that have come out with the federal ada around service animals that have provided some additional clarity, but also are a little bit different than what the state regulations are. their interest -- the mayor's office on disability is interested in working with our office and the commission to work to inform businesses of what service animal means and often there are times when individuals have service animals

that are misbehaving and a business does not have to allow that individual to stay in the place of business if they cannot keep the service animal under control. we will be exploring this at the outreach committee as to whether we might want to do a joint commission hearing on this, or whether we have a formal presentation on this at one of the commission derek -- commission hearings. they are interested in getting business input. i think i have included in your packets information that the mayor's office on disability has provided around the new guidelines with service animals. but this is one that i think would be a good one for us to partner with to provide information, adequate information on. this seems to be some

businesses -- a lot of businesses -- the mayor's office on disability gets a lot of calls from businesses wanting to know what are the parameters of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. there was a recent piece of legislation at the state level on special access liability. it died in committee last week. the bill wouldn't require the owner of a property to be notified and to allow them 120 days to be able to fix the problem before it could come to suit. it did not pass out of committee. some of the comments were that we have the cast -- casp inspection and this relatively new law needs to allow some time to see how it is being

implemented. hr 881 at the federal level -- representative hunter has introduced this. it has not been scheduled in committee. i think they are still looking to increase the number of legislative sponsors at this particular point. but its objective is to require a notification in 90 days to allow business to come into compliance before a suit can be filed. sb 1608 created a california commission on disability access to monitor the inspection and other items. they just hired an executive director. i did have a conversation with

him. they will be, now that he is in place -- they will be giving some attention around the inspections. i think there are some -- he has indicated that there are some potential issues around the different inspectors, the lack of specificity around the requirements of what needs to be in the reports. what could possibly be a potential liability for businesses down the road is differentiating if you have an inspector who may not provide enough and permission. and other items and the h