however, i am also sensitive to the fact that we do have an uncertainty here that could be a health hazard that may prove to be much more drastic than we are aware of right now, later on. we want to try to be measured about how we proceed and that it is a game of chance sometimes and what we think is a likely outcome. to that end, i am for making people be made to be able to be reminded of the possibility of risk associated with radiofrequency, and just to be reminded of it. i could possibly go along with something like a poster in the place of business. but the idea of having to issue

a flier, get fliers printed -- that is not done for free, not to mention the fact that now we have another paper product littering the streets. i think you will all agree with me -- most of these things are going to end up in the garbage bin. they will be read by 1% of the people. not to render negligible the importance of the 1% that my read it, but it is not an effective way to do it. i think i would rather see something posted, and not the extra step of having to do that. i would rather see more of it go back to the manufacturer. >> i would like to say i really agree with what you are saying. i do support this, in theory, but i would feel more comfortable in terms of small business compliance if it is

like a poster that can get from the department of environment. it is there. i could support that as an amendment. president o'brien: i could do that. can we get the motion? commissioner yee riley: i have a clue -- a question. i support the right to know. people should be educated about the possible risk of having a cell phone. i can support it if we do not penalize this small business owner so it is a out reach program. if you do not get at the flyer, you are breaking the law. i do not agree with that. i can support providing the

poster and getting them the fire. do not make the basis to pay a fine. president o'brien: i think the posters would give somebody the notice they need to see. if you make it optional, it is useless. it does not have any teeth. it is a waste of time to put that in there. i think most people would say thanks for telling me about the existence of fire. no thanks. i think the poster -- i really do believe in trying to cut back on paper and the use of paper. if we are going to have paper, i want to personally moved into a system where i store all my files in documents and try to reduce my own footprint on the environment. i really think a poster would suffice. you walk in.

it is prominent enough that it is visible to the eye of the customer walking in the door. i think they will get the message. commissioner yee riley: are you still in favor of the penalty? >> there would be no penalty associated with it. the poster would have to go up, and that would be it. >> how did you in force this and how to mitigate the potential hazard to your health? president o'brien: how do we force them to put the posters up without a penalty? >> their or pun -- there are penalties for not posting minimum wage. i have a lot of postings and i think that all have penalties.

>> here is another posting. i think it is getting ridiculous. you're going to have a whole wall of postings for every little thing. commissioner yee riley: there are laws if you do not post the sun about drinking during pregnancy. -- sign about drinking during pregnancy. >> i can check the ordinance for you. i agree with commissioner o'brien that it would be -- i would agree that you would have to hand out information with each individual phone if you had a posting that is informing people. there is an opportunity to mitigate their exposure. there is the ear piece, the

bluetooth -- >> 1 not suggest a smaller fine, just as a smaller find? i believe the violation is pretty high. but unless you at least have something in theory on the books, no one is good to put it up, just because people are lazy. i would to say if you do not put it up it is a $50 fine. i think that is sufficient enough to have to put it up. president o'brien: i did not think about the fine part of it when i suggested the poster. i do not like putting fines and fees on businesses. i really do not. it is a tough one.

commissioner dooley: what is in the legislation is pretty standard for all fines and fees the city applies on many different pieces of regulations toward businesses. i am not trying to dissuade you from any direction one way or another, but wanted to make it clear that the amounts of the fines are not different than the other means of finds that are applied to different regulations. i assume this is more about compliance and it is fining. president o'brien: i would like to get a poster up there. i think the public education

message to remind people of the dangers of radiofrequency is a good thing, but i cannot just start putting these out there. as much as of would like to see the poster up there. do we have a motion of any sort? >> i would like to make a motion to support this, to support the posting requirement. to support the posting requirement with the elimination of the flyer. do i have a second? take a row, please. president o'brien: it is okay. [laughter] >> sorry. president o'brien: no problem.

>> on that motion. vice president adams: no. commissioner clyde: aye. commissioner dooley: yes. president o'brien: no. commissioner yee riley: no. >> commissioners, that fails 3- 2. president o'brien: ok. next item, please. >> that will be reflected as a no recommendation. is that correct? president o'brien: in its current form, yes. >> i just want to say that i think the department of the environment for working really hard to make something that was

actually doable and amenable to both the industry as well as the retailers and the general public. i think they worked very, very hard, and i would like to remind everyone that this is an industry that took the opportunity to show its displeasure with san francisco by pulling a major contention out of san francisco the moment this was -- convention out of san francisco the mom and this was announced. i think that did more damage than it helped. we will still be working on this. i do want to thank the department. >> you are now on item 8, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on file # 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