and they have an opportunistic real estate program. this year, i think it will be taking in $275 million from tuition 199 million is federal money. there is no ceiling on their body. they will grow, grow, grow. the policy is to buy and use existing housing 10 town they are reducing demand that would

only exists for that policy of unlimited growth. our goal going forward and i think the commissioners struck a good tone is to figure out a combination of regulations and incentives that get them to build new housing or convert buildings and to focus on certain areas that make sense with its high transit capacity. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have two separate comments. i would like to make a comment about the academy of art.

the more general comment about the institution like this seems to me that the current mayor has 8 jobs driven economic development strategy. this it needs to lead to jobs. we are encouraging institutional growth. this is a vibrancy to have cultural activities. we want to make sure that there are the housing facilities for those folks. how do you house the student population as it grows is very germane and we're not overstressing our housing stock and it raised the question whether we should do this as a

matter of policy. there are things induced by the user population. we can take a breath and see how we can create some structured to this policy. the second thing is noticing provisions and i am looking here at this tony administration i have said this to mr. sanchez, i think this is very low hanging fruit. i am a neighborhood activist and i do policy work for a living and the policy work that comes before you often has something

to do with how much people know what is going on and when they know it and whether they know it at the right time to have some kind of substantive involvement. the first psychological reaction is to assume the worst. there is a planning around the seat with determination. i heard a briefing on the sustainability fee which will lead to more exemptions. as we change how we do business on developing policy, we need to think about how people can be informed, engage, and where that makes them feel as though they are part of the progress and not

impacted by it. think you. >> these lead right to mine. i was at the original hearing when d.c. "was implemented -- wendwhen the seqa was implement. there was a uniform process figured out for how notice was given. we to notices differently from the state. the rudimentary state and federal processes are not what

we use in san francisco. what we use is radius and the planning department lists and various mechanisms. i was shocked to find out that a major eir that was released and the only reason why i found out about it is that i read all the notices and i read the committee notices. there was a mention of a van ness eir that had been released. i get every notice. i'm the only person that gets categorical exception. the fact that i got no notice whatsoever of that the i are shocked me and it is very hard and tedious to track it down.

i would like you to have a presentation on how that happened, how did we get into a position where the mta does not follow the procedures that the rest of the city follows. no one got notice. there was a group of people that were on task forces that they had, that they gave notice to. it was not on any planning department notice list at all. this is a big project and i hear that you will have a hearing on it. who knows about it? who is going to comment on it? the basic question is mr. white should be required to give a presentation about how this happened and are there any

instances where the city agencies have fallen out of the procedures. i think it would be an eye opener to find out that you have exempted things. the other issue that should be discussed is the categorical exemptions because we have no more notices. we get nothing until the project is approved. thank-you. >> thank you. >> there are many people here for 49 trillion. we will be hearing that after this item. it is the next item after this one. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i'm assuming that you're saying this will be after item

10. we are on item 10. proposed changes to restaurants, video stores, and related land- use control. >> before i start, of like to turn the day is over to their representative from supervisor mirkarimi's office. >> aachen supervisor mirkarimi is not able to make it and he asked me to represent him. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. i'm here to offer some history and the context on this legislation that has been in the works. we would like to thank the

planning department for all of its hard work. they worked diligently on this issue, particularly this summer and trying to accommodate the needs of various groups. we would like to thank the planning department for all of its hard work. supervisor mirkarimi introduced this after the community groups and small business owners came and expressed concerns about onerous restrictions on locally owned self-service frisch restaurants -- self-service restaurants. these were meant to stop the spread of fast-food restaurants and chain stores in san francisco. now that there are clear rules, many believe that the code is out of date and confusing to many. the restrictions caused hardships and delays.

current limitations include prohibiting on site food preparation and cooking and reading in coffee shops without a conditional use approval. this was clear and concise and the geography. the planning department submitted a report about the efforts to refine and clarify the restaurant definitions. at that time, we came and presented and ask that you delay your formal rebuke so that the

supervisor and the play department can conduct more community outreach. subsequently, your review has been delayed by further efforts to do community outreach. out reach was conducted in organization is representing west portal, copper film all, north beach, castro, chinatown, they hate, and the mission. that is where we stand for you. -- 8 ashbury -- we're giving you an opportunity to review this. thank you very much.

>> are there any planning issues i should be aware of. san francisco would like new businesses to keep our city dynamic and unique. >> i would like to open in a neighborhood, what do you mean what kind of restaurant. will customers order at a counter or will a waiter come

out? >> i guess they will come at the counter. >> i guess this would be at the counter. >> the planning code classifies that as a full-service restaurant. will there be disposable rappers? >> no, there will be reusable placekicker joshed place. >> since you're using plates, you are a full-service restaurant. only with conditional use authorization which takes between four and six months to process. >> that is a long time and expensive. i don't think that i can afford the rent on an empty space for six months but if i did serve the food in disposable wrappers.

>> you have to have them pick up the food from the counter. >> ok, fine. i will have a bit and serve it in disposable wrappers. >> how big is the space? 1000 square feet or less would make you a small self-service restaurant. >> 1200 square feet. >> it does not matter in this district because neither one is permitted. you can have another location in mind. >> how about upper market? >> small self-service restaurants require conditional use authorization in the upper market neighborhood. >> can i sell coffee and bagels? >> yes, as long as they are

prepackaged and not posted. >> as long as i don't put them in a sandwich press? >> yes, we would have to send someone to confiscate your toaster. >> can i serve ice-cream? >> only if it is served in a cup and not a tone. otherwise, we would have to send in a fourth officer to take your eyes cream cones. >> are there any other rules? >> you can not contain more than 15 seats with more than 400 square feet devoted to seeding. it must have a limited menu of beverages. >> and thank you. this has been very informative. perhaps i should keep my job.

>> you are quite welcome. i'm glad i could help. >> this shows the current situation and the referent definitions are confusing and they don't make sense. this might seem absurd, many potential small business owners have had conversations with the planners. to go back to the reasons we

started this, we started on this endeavor because of legislation introduced by supervisor mirkarimi. there is a report which recommended revising these definitions and received a lot of comments and letters from community groups that would like to revise their red strut -- the red strut definitions -- the rest got definitions -- in- line this informed neighborhood groups as well as interested parties on the legislation and proposal. the department office posted a two outreach meetings and i would like to think the

supervisor for his work on this on helping us with these meetings. we contacted various neighborhood groups with gave controls about the proposed legislation and a page on the department's website where we posted the video that you just saw and the proposal. we made a presentation to the small business commission. the code has 13 eating and drinking definitions. small self-service restaurants and others are differentiated by the number of seats. we're discussing video stores and they have their own use category.

the staff recommendation is to simplify the definitions. we would like to reduce the total number in article 7 and 823. we would like to integrate conditions into the restaurant definitions so that business owners and community members know how businesses operate up front. this would be covered under the sales and service. video stores are going out of business. there is no need to have a use definition. we would like to maintain existing controls preserving restaurant caps and restrictions based on the bars and individual districts.

a bit of our methodology, we divided the different uses we have currently by the type of alcohol lessons or how alcohol was allowed to be served on site. we have the uses that does not have the alcohol on site. the part definition was best left unchanged but consolidated into one section of the code under article 7. just another graphic explaining how that works with the alcohol use. the basis for the recommendation coming the original definitions were added in 1987.

they were crated to limit the number of restaurants and preserve neighborhood serving retail. there are new categories that could adapt to a changing market will still controlling the most useful aspect of the restaurant. the standard does conditions would be added to the new definitions.

the controls would help to preserve small neighborhood character and most of those are around 2500 square feet. some go as little as 2000. since our presentation last july, we have drafted the ordinance and we took our recommendations and we put them in ordinance form. we hosted two outreach meetings and we converted existing restaurant controls to fit with new definitions including controls in the valley, north beach, west portal, to name a few. we are finding the proposed eating and drinking definitions and we have the revised chinatown controls. today, we are asking you to make action on this item. you can recommend for approval

the original legislation, you can recommend approval of the legislation with the modifications that staff is requesting, or you can not recommend any changes and maintain the current controls as they are. i do have one small change to the legislation and this is very minor. with that, my presentation is complete. >> i would like to open it up for public comment.

>> good afternoon. i'm the director of the office of small business. i would like to thank supervisor mirkarimi for his additional legislation and your legislation to open up and examining the complex definitions a round restaurants and giving direction and guidance to your staff. i would like to thank them for the work they have done. the commission met on monday, july 11th and following the presentation, the commission voted 6-0 to recommend adding to you to approve the restaurant consolidation and simplification as drafted. as i noted the commission previously heard supervisor

mirkarimi's proposal. there has been an additional outreach about the proposed changes and we have noticed in our bulletin and in july we made it a headline banner island -- banner item. this was the highest highest sef our bulletin. i wanted to highlight that as well. in reference to my letter i submitted to you on behalf of the commission, the restaurant the zoning regulations, as noted by the video, are difficult and cumbersome for san francisco's small businesses. as in that video and your staff to deal with new business owners on a day-to-day basis, so do our individuals in our offices, our business assistance, and we

have those conversations on a daily basis with individuals. the office of small business, we have clients that come in with exciting and innovative business models that frequently do not easily fit into these singles zoning categories or we have entrepreneur is taking over an existing restaurant, only to find that their concept is not permitted and they have often discover this after signing a lease. as noted in my letter, simply stated, the current code is over complex, discourages compliance, and cannot prevent businesses from reaching their prodigious. since two dozen men, the small business commission has supported the implementation of many of these regulations. our offices work with supervisor mirkarimi and your staff on creating a limited life performance permits. the small business commission agrees that the findings are the

cornerstone recommendation of number three, pertaining to overhauling the regulations for eating and drinking uses. small business commission finds that planning staff's proposal before you today is consistent with these recommendations, and we strongly recommend that the planning commission and the board of supervisors enact these changes without delay. in making these recommendations, we note that simplification will not lead to degradation of policies and the zoning districts with special control. and with west parole, hastert, north beach, and others. and we will continue to have special regulations put in place to meet the needs of other neighborhoods. while this is not in the recommendations before you, i would like to suggest that as part of your conversation, for the commission to consider discussing the topic of requiring conditional use for bonafide restaurants that want

to have a tight 47 license, currently as proposed, that will still require a conditional use. with that, i do want to encourage you to recommend today adding these regulations to supervisor mirkarimi's current piece of legislation. thank you. thank you. thank you for being here and sharing those thoughts with us. now we will open it up for public comment. peter, robbed, tom, and victor. >> good afternoon. yes repeaters. i want to set way from comments made earlier about notification. i want to talk about the process side of this. i did discuss the substance of k and the surface level seems flexible code consolidation. but, you know, that keep video that was don