the architectural committee heard about this and they were impressed with the modifications that were made based on the prior suggestions. and one of these commissioners thought that this was sufficient, and that the project did not need to be modified any further. they did not believe the further modifications, that there would be a setback, that would bring light to the smallest window. they acknowledged that this is just a suggestion and there were the modifications that would be made. and also, they did hear this --

with the athletic reservations, and it was a very tight hearing. they had a couple of hours to cut the testimony down to one minute per person, and there were left with about eight minutes to deliberate. they take the room had a specific time. you get to stay in the room until you finish your hearing. and day -- this was mixed. there was the comment in the letter format. the last item, they took up the modifications, for the

supervisor weiner. there were very upset that the supervisor said modifications and suggestions, to appear before the commission. he was concerned that he was ready to table the whole thing until the need to come before him and make his case. they heard these modifications, and some of them were acceptable and some were not. and they have drafted their comments before you consider those modifications. that will conclude my report. >> commissioners, with that, we can move into the 15 minutes public comment. and we can discuss the

commission. each member of the public can address you, keeping in mind that the category is only 15 minutes and they may not address you on items that are not on the calendar. with that -- >> somebody did >> someone did not write in a name. the general public comment relates to items that are not on today's calendar. >> i am a student at san francisco state university. this is based on your policies and what you can do towards

future projects. i would like to suggest that this takes into account the project to be approved under your jurisdiction. we would like to see any remaining wildlife habitat remain in tact. entire ecosystems have been destroyed. san francisco was once the site of diverse wetlands that provide services such as flood control, water purification. it is our responsibility to share that we protect as much wildlife habitat as possible and we should work to ensure that the public park and recreational areas are not threatened or

removed. these enhance the city with beauty and also recreational opportunities. the committee support projects has sustainable projects. this is an environmentally sustainable san francisco. >> it is there additional public comment? >> i was hoping to be here for the early special meeting. i was going to talk about the academy of art. this is very frustrating.

you have done a lot in the last few months. you talk about the student housing and the definition of student housing. this is the student definition that your house and came down on. you passed exceptions when you had student housing. you had a number of recent enforcement actions but i think the real opportunities as the commissioner said earlier will come with the eir and conditional use discussions. i think there are three fundamental problems we are trying to deal with. we have an institution that sees the entire city as its campus

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