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 done earlier, if you replace all of the content with the notification process about how many -- what is there, 25 notification standards for every conceivable types of projects considered. are you a tenant, an occupant, a homeowner? is it 311, 312? 20 day notification, 30 day notification? it is baffling. if you put a committeeperson in a position, it is no different. no less frustrating and an fiore rating, frankly. so the chuckle we saw compels us to see how we can fix and simplify those season -- and those. i know the department has an agenda of major legislative efforts, some proposed by the department, proposed by various members of the board of supervisors. i am confused why universal plan

a vacation or something along those lines is not also part of the major legislative agenda for this department right now. it is the soft tissue that makes your job, commissioners, either very difficult or a little bit easier. on this legislation and others like it on the agenda that the department has, i am concerned that because these are unusual, this is not an application by a sponsor that already has various triggers for how folks get involved. there are no standards for knowledge is that the proposals are vetting with the general public or standing bodies. i am is part of the community advisory committee, or whether i am and never the person off the street. there no standards, protocols, or procedures for how legislative proposal actually get vetted. it is essentially made up on the fly. i appreciate supervisor mirkarimi's office taking the extra time to reach out to folks and have the various meetings. but that does not make for a standard.

we have the any legislation coming down the pike in articles 10 and 11. i it begs the question of, how can we set some standards that are consistent? [bell rings] and how our major neighborhood associations engaged? how are actually affected communities engaged? rather than making it up each time. again, not blaming. but i think it is a gaffe in our institutional standards. as a matter of policy, i would suggest the commission said it expectations for the department that anything that comes before you should have gone through certain kind of checklists or vetting processes for the level of consistency. thank you. >> get afternoon. my name is rob, executive director for the golden gate restaurant association. it is my pleasure to be here today to discuss with you this piece of legislation.

i want to thank supervisor mirkarimi and his office. rob, in particular, for the work they have done. as well as your staff. the analogy i would use to how i think a lot of restaurant workers and small entrepreneurs in the city look at the planning code sometimes it it -- is that it is lacking. we still do all the law and teach our legal clauses in latin. in those people who knew it much more powerful than the rest of the people. really, that is how the planning code is now as we get into some of these very confusing process is about what is allowed and what is not allowed. it empowers the very few people who really understand the code. but the general population is very much disempowered. i think what this legislation does is it takes a very common- sense approach to simplify that, so that people can understand what they're getting into, what sort of investments they're getting into, what their liability is when they're trying to start a business and create

jobs in the city. i think the planning department has gone a long way to try to move that down the pack in a very productive way. i do not think -- and i think it was reiterated by adam that it undermines protections. we have put a lot of protections over the last decade in place regarding our neighborhoods, protecting the quality and types of businesses that go into those neighborhoods through conditional use, through a formula retail. so a lot of the arcane parts, the really difficult to latin parts, are not necessary anymore because we have other protections that are much more easy to see on the service. so i do think this creates a nice clean up. i also think that in the process since, this has meant something that the city has done its due diligence. i believe this is the third time before this body. it was before the small business

commission did you have your staff with protocols about how the reach out to neighborhood groups on the sorts of issues, through e-mail and notification that people have signed up for. there has been significant outreach, and it is not done. it now needs to go through the board of supervisors and have the opportunity to go to the land use committee and the full board. that is the legislative process. [bell rings] that is how we all work. we ask that you take and support this common-sense legislation that cleans up and simplifies the code to move it forward so it is easier to create jobs and start businesses in san francisco and approved our neighborhood and improve the quality of life. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tom, executive director of livable city. we worked with supervisor

mirkarimi on the original legislation here, and the impetus for this actually kind of came from your staff. i was at a small restaurant, and two planning department staff recognize me and they said, we want to take you for a drink. and they did. they said we started with the planning department because we wanted to serve the public. we wanted to have good, rational planning in the city that benefited the public. but what we see too often is this web of regulation that really tortures' these little businesses. it is impossible to really understand if you are complying or not with which one of the 13 definitions and so on. the big guys have their armies of lawyers. they figure it out or they have their own impulse. but i think it is the small businesses, the little folks, here, this web of rules when the toyota does not make sense. the conversation got me thinking about how we would do this, and so we looked at the nc-1

districts in the inner sunset. you tell them to be bolder and look bigger, and they have done so. they crafted a smart piece of legislation. i think it gets to the major concerns that they have done a lot of outreach without a lot of additional budget. they have definitely stretched themselves to talk to all the concern groups. i do not think we are entirely done it other some neighborhoods, especially in the mixed use districts, that we will need to work with. we have to carve sections of for the full board and hopefully get this done. but they have done a tremendous job, as has director mirkarimi's staff. this was not their original intent to take a song, but they have talked to everybody from many neighborhoods, mostly outside of district 5. but i think we have a good workable framework that is solid. with these definitions, you will know that you can apply.

i like the extensions of the good neighbor policies, the ones that were in article 8, bringing them into article 7, so restaurants are good neighbors. and it is clear what to do with trash and minorities. their standard conditions of approval. the nc districts helps level the playing field. [bell rings] i think you have a chance to liberate the entrepreneurs in the city. there are tax breaks and things like that. there will be something down the road. here is that chance, do something for the little folks who wanted to start a business but we should nurture that. we are incredibly creative cities around food. we pride our unique neighborhood identities and what the ability of our neighborhoods. this legislation advances all of those goals. we urge you to move it forward unanimously to the board of supervisors with recommendations. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon.

my name is victor. i have been a small business lawyer here in san francisco now for 21 years. i want to congratulate sheriff mirkarimi, supervisor mirkarimi, and his staff, and also the planning staff of the planning commission, your department, for providing leadership and support to the small business community, which as we know, is the backbone of our neighborhoods. i have had the privilege and honor of representing many immigrant small business owners, ranging from all over latin america, from the middle east, from eastern europe, from japan, from china, thailand, and various other communities. i can assure you that for many of these small businesses to come here, that is part of their success. not only as individuals but for

their family. and they do make of the character, the great character that san francisco is so famous for throughout the world. i have reviewed this legislation carefully. huge kudos to everyone that has been involved. i urge you to pass it unanimously if you could. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> cindy. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the interim deputy director at the chinatown cd. c i want to talk about a number of issues. the first is outreach. we heard about this project when it came from mirkarimi is office the second time, so in october. we worked hard to get up to speed on it. ann marie and aaron did come to our office, and i want to thank them for that. but we talked about need. we mentioned in the powerpoint

that we give the recommendations but since then, we have been thinking about outreach we can do. we had not reached to merging groups in the neighborhood, to small businesses, property owners, that have not had the time for it to come back to us. but then again, started thinking more about what the problem is. we solve the problem statement in the video that was created. but is that true for chinatown? chinatown has seen incredible vitality through the really tough economic time recently. the vacancy rate, i believe, is under 5%. chinatown is really depended on the zoning for over the last 30 to 40 years to protect the neighborhood, to make sure that it is neighborhood-serving, to make sure that restaurants that are there serve the population that lives there. so there are currently five categories of restaurants in chinatown. i would argue to say that they are working. in another way, i think that we

just do not know what the changes would mean. there have not really been like a simple fact sheet created. there is not in a way first to really get to understand what this means for a chinatown neighborhood. there are a number of changes come to chinatown but a city college is currently being constructed. chinese hospital will be constructed sen. central subway is under construction. this will change the nature of what is needed for restaurants, but maybe we need to look at it after our toward the end of the construction. so i want to ask that you please remove the chinatown excuse district and this version of legislation. we can revisit it at another time when there is an opportunity to really make outreach to the merchants and the merchants associations. i want to end by saying that think we actually have a winning model of the zoning in chinatown right now. if there is really not a problem that we see needing to be fixed in the neighborhood, why change in why jeopardize that model? president olague: thank you.

is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. vice president miguel: i appreciate the office of small business having commented and consider this item. i think this is an area where planning and small business have to come together more often in the future. i appreciated mr. marquez's comments come from someone in the legal field who handles small businesses. and it makes me think of something that often bothers me, which is the fact that it is my feeling that commercial realtors, or any realtor, who is handling a space and someone wants to buy the restaurant in is reprehensible, and perhaps bordering on unethical.

if they do not know of research and inform prospective tenants of what has to be inspected of them. all it does is cause them, the owner of the building, the prospective tenant, the building department, and this commission problems all down the line. and that should be part of what they do straight out. a side comment, i a agree on it notices, and that is something the department is working on. san francisco's restaurant role -- merchants will go anyplace in the country, let alone the world, and that is how we are known. our restaurants are constantly expanding, changing, and leading in that field. but it is very, very, very confusing. i appreciate cindy's comment.

i would not move to remove chinatown at this point, whether the board of supervisors, the land use committee, or the full board decide to do it, it is out of our hands. i just want to complement the supervisor's office, the department, and everyone who has worked on this. they came to us with a very simple thing and originally had. we expanded its fantastically, which i think was logical to do, and i am is satisfied with the way it has come out now. it may have to be tweaked in the future. we know this with all legislation. i do not think that is a bad thing. but we have to get it in place, and the simplification, to me, is very, very important.

commissioner antonini: i really like this legislation. it has a lot to do with the kiss principle, keep it simple stupid. that is basically the easiest way to understand things, to get all the publications out of there. i do have some questions for aaron starr. ok, i guess the first question in category, and it went pretty fast, but my understanding is that the bar definition would allow all sorts of alcoholic beverages, full-service bar. >> correct. the bar definition is really not changing. but the two definitions are being consolidated into one. commissioner antonini: and you have restaurant which is limited to beer and wine. restaurant ltd. would be no on sell alcohol, but it could be off sale, such as a store or something that might also serve some food. >> correct. however, restaurants would be able to have a full liquor license, so they would be able

to serve liquor. but if they did, that would categorize them as a bar. that is currently the way the planning code operates right now. so there are the options for a restaurant to get a 47 liquor license, but if the neighborhood has restrictions on it, there would be subject to those restrictions. >> but when a restaurant moves to a 47 full bar, then they're no longer categorized as a restaurant. they are now a bar. >> probably two uses. both the restaurant and eating. then you also have the bar. commissioner antonini: that was one of my comments. if you want to make it a little more understandable. you might want to make that full-service bar defined as a restaurant/bar, because it is both. you could have a bar that does not serve any food, although it would not be categorized as any

kind of restaurant. it is confusing to call it a bar but it is actually a restaurant/bar. the term restaurant could be the beer and wine category peter just a suggestion to avoid some confusion. my other question is this, and i think you already sort of inserted. when you are depending on the neighborhood, your change in size -- say you're going to go above the allowed footprint, but you would probably have to go through a conditional use process, i would assume, to do that. >> right, to go above that size, you need a non conditional use. >commissioner antonini: any changeup category notwithstanding what the abc is going to do, but some neighborhoods would require a cu to go from beer and wine to full alcohol. >> that is correct. others may not. and others prohibit it entirely. commissioner antonini: ok. that seems to answer most of my

questions. i think it is good. i do agree with commissioner miguel that i think this has to be city-wide. when you start carving out parts of the city to have different categories for them, then i think it defeats the purpose of the legislation. and i do not quite see anything as a problem here. all existing uses are presumably permitted. you're not going to be moved to denver category. you will be categorized differently, but you're permitting you will not be changed. >> correct. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> commissioners, thank you for your comments. i want to thank everybody for their excellent work on this. this is a very focused peas and eating and drinking uses. there is the elimination of the

video circuit court, which is probably not necessary. but there could be corresponding amendments to section 312, 303, and is dealing with the formula retail uses. currently, the controls apply to these types of uses. perhaps there will be a motion adopting the changes. i would also add in that the section 312 notification in formula retail use control would still apply. there's been no changes in that because the socks is on the eating and drinking uses the not want to make it clear that we're making these other changes. commissioner fong: i am overall supportive of it. i think we can simplified language in the process. as it was explained for new business operator coming in, really try to calculate the risks of going into business if we can simplify and streamline, all the better. related to chinatown, i can understand. i think i would need to learn a little bit more.

the supervisor level, there is an opportunity to make that change. at this point, i think we're better off going city-wide and studying it a little bit further. i would be willing to make a motion to approve with recommendation of staff. >> second. president olague: i just wanted to also thank staff for all your work. also, thank the small business commission for taking time to review it. we do not always get input for other commissions that have closer dealings with some of these issues than we do here. i am grateful for that. as for chinatown, i would support -- i would like to -- i do not know if the needs to be added to the motion or not, but to instruct the staff to encourage the board of supervisors to continue engaging in discussions with the

chinatown merchants. because if it -- kind of cliche, if it works, do not fix it. something like that. if something has been working for the past, you know, 30 years, then maybe we do see exemptions occasionally to codes. maybe not a full exemption, but maybe some, you know, obvious tweaks. it may be that they want to update what they have going on in their community, business community also. so i would not say just throw it all out, but it may be that there are other considerations or changes to make. i fully support this. commissioner moore: i just wanted to thank mr. starr and ms. rogers. i hope that mr. starr will do a sequel to his cartoon. [laughter] the two together would probably