stiffer and stronger. ~ goes so that during the earthquake the upper floor will not collapse down on this story. it can be done in about two weeks' time. voila, you're done. easy. >> for more information on how to get your building earthquake ready, [gavel]. >> chair peskin: good afternoon and well come to the land use and transportation committee meeting of july 8, 2019. i am joined by supervisor safai to my left and matt haney to my right. our clerk is miss erica major.

miss clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. please silence all cell phones. items acted upon today will appear on the july 16 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major, and i hope that everybody had a good extended july 4 holiday. madam clerk, could you please read the first item. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you. this item has been brought to us by supervisor mandelman. supervisor mandelman, the floor is uyourself.

>> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair peskin. i have a few amendments that i would like to offer, and i also understand the chair has some amendments, as well. the ordinance before the committee does two things. first, it extends controls that protected alleyways and narrow streets in transit oriented and neighborhood commercial districts to also protect alleyways and narrow streets in residential zoning districts rh-1, d, s, 2, and rh-3. the ordinance makes it easier to add accessory dwelling units as back yard cottages on corner lots and through lots. now i must admit this ordinance stemmed from frustration at the board of appeals.

in march 2017, the planning commission heard a request for discretionary review on a project in glen park adjacent to an alleyway known to local historians as the old mission trail. no one knew that this little scrap of land could be a developable project. what really burned me up about this case was that when the developer then appealed the commission's decision to the board of appeals in february 2018, the board took it upon itself to undo two of the

modest concessions the commission had required, removing the light well and allowing the roof deck. now by the time i took seat on the board, all the work had begun, and there did not seem to be a clean way to roll back a project gone wrong. i did learn that although our laws protect alleys and narrow streets in back yard and commercial districts, it does not apply to back yard alleys and narrow streets in residential districts.

the alleyway protections in this ordinance are relatively straightforward. ordinance mak basically, these limits require that upper stories be set back at least 10 feet at the property line starting at a height 1.25 times the width of the abutting streets, and . the main provisions of the ordinance addressing rear-yard cottages are as follows. second residential buildings will be permitted on both through lots and corner lots where the existing building has

an adjacent building on permitted corners of the lot. in order to create space for secondary structures on corner lots and lots, the ordinance would allow these lots or rear yard a structure equal to 20% of the total lot depth but not less than 15 feet. and then for existing nonconforming buildings, the ordinance provides that for the person creating habitable space and as long as the number of li living space is increased -- i understand this is also going to have some additional amendments. i do have my own amendments to propose today, and they reflect

feedback our office received from the planning department and planning commission. i understand these are considered substantive, and that even if introduced today, they will need to be voted on at a subsequent committee meeting. changes are shown as page 2, lane 14, and page 3, lines 5 to 9, and page 17, lines 6 to 7. specifically, if a property owner does choose to increase the ceiling height of an existing tonight or to change a flat roof to a pitched roof, such changes are not subject to 311 notice requirement but would need to adhere to residential design guidelines. a second amendment focusing on

structures that faces a back alley or lot. currently, the code requires the maximum set back of 15 feet from the property line or 15% of the average density of the lot, whichever's greater. our initial draft reduced this back to 15% of average depth, the thinking on a nary alleyway, a left ward look might be appropriate. shown at page 5, line 14, modifies language regarding the purpose of rear yards. the ordinance adds a purpose to section 134, which in the original states that rear yard requirements were intended

among other things to provide residents with open space and views into green spaces. our amendment clarifies that the purpose is to protect views into rear yard green spaces. a fourth proposed amendment at page 5, lines 15 to 16 provides the ordinance's height limits for narrow streets and alleyways will not apply to building frontages with a street wider than 40 feet. the purpose of this amendment is to respect and give effect to long-standing guidance emphasizing height at street corners. and my last amendment at page 16, lines 4 to 5 limited set back to 15 feet of buildings that are higher than two stories above grade.

i want to thank everyone who helped out, and finally, i want to thank all of you committee members for your time and consideration. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor mandelman. as you indicated, i also have a handful of amendments which your office is aware of, and i think are acceptable to you. they primarily actually amend the concept of habitable space to the notion of accessory dwelling units. [please stand by]

proposed a few modifications very quickly. clarification of the process. further studying

the effects for narrow street and allie's. that concludes my presentation. setback requirements, clarification for narrow streets on allie's and the rh or rm districts and modifying the language around the purpose so that concludes my presentation. >> thank you mr. sanchez.

supervisor tran15, if it's acceptable before opening this up for public comment, i just want to eat to the amendments that i mentioned. would provide that the rear yard depth would only apply. i will read the language. that we would add, provided however that the administrator may reduce the total depth to 20 percent pursuant to section 307 of this code. if reduction is for the sole purpose under section 207-c4 and provided further that any reduction or waiver of this requirement is in consideration of the property owner entering into regulatory agreement pursuant to section 207-c4 h subjecting the adu to the san

francisco rent stabilization arbitration ordinance. i think i spoke to the rationale for that which basically is - if we are conferring an increase in property value, it should really be done for a public purpose with some public value recapture. the cities waiver program pursuant to exception and hawkins is the only way to do that. the second amendment would be at page 12 to modify the language on lines 24-25 with regards to increase ceiling height which would provide, however, that the purpose of creating delete habitable space and insert an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to 207-c4. i did not add, in what is before you, but have since discussed with the city attorney also adding

the language providing further any waiver of this requirement is in consideration of the property owner entering into regulatory agreement for the stabilization ordinance. i would like to add that language. as with the language that the supervisor mandel men that it would require a continuance to a future hearing, presumably next week. the third amendment would be at page 13 to modify the underlying language on lines 5-nine. if a building is a historic resource are located in the historic district alterations comply with

applicable secretary of interior standards and other code provisions pertaining to historic properties. finally, the fourth amendment under x-band alleyway and narrow street height limit to all of our districts. currently it reads. [reading items] i would like it to read modify our, so that would also include residential districts in the narrow street. those would be the amendment that i would offer, why don't we hear from the public on item number one. we will open this up to public comment. >> good afternoon super divisors. - - - supervisors. i want to express our support for

this support. as he mentioned, many cities are really looking at these low density zoning districts that they have. these cover half of san francisco's land area is our h-one and our h-two. adding building owners, if to make bigger and bigger and bigger units. we have a weird work in our zoning code which says you can build a monster home in half of the city you just cannot build a smaller building or add units to a building or add a cottage in the back. which is a ridiculous thing to do. it's making the city less affordable. it is encouraging owners to destroy sound housing not to create more units about to make bigger houses. it's not adding to our diversity of housing. it's pushing us further and further of affordability. starting with corner lots and rear lots in

terms of a way to add cottages seems sensible. we are big fans of private open space. there would still be a rear yard between front and rear buildings. we are trying to preserve those areas also there is some provisions here which says if you are building a single-family house speaker, nancy pelosi one an next speaker, please. it cannot cover as much lot as it does now. the goal is, let's preserve existing housing area just want to comment on the proposed modifications. the provision that allows you to increase height. allows you to increase in existing unit into that or - this would only allow you to add and adu. >> that's the thing i was going to ask about. the amendment.

>> good afternoon supervisors. i'm here in support of this ordinance, oddly enough i was involved in this particular project, the neighbors actually reached out to me back in 2017 i believe. it was a very odd situation. this particular parcel is a triangular-shaped that is barely 900 square feet. those types of lot are not necessarily uncommon in the city of san francisco. we are dealing with a couple of them. i just wanted to bring up this issue that even within this small 900 square-foot wedge looking lot, the developer was planning on building close to 3000 square feet. 3000 square feet, i assure

you is more than enough for having a single-family home, plus and adu. i reckon it's enough to have 2 adu's in a single-family home. i want you not to give up your original text of the bill that would leave some yard space and would have a requirement to have the rear yard. because once you actually go to three stories, four stories, you could definitely have enough to have aiden adu and a rear yard. anyway i am so ready this legislation and the amendments opposed by supervisor peskin. so thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public for item number one? please come forward. >> lewis dylan, making san

francisco great again coalition. i have reviewed this ordinance and i just want to open up your perception to the fact that we would not be talking about this ordinance if it was not for pay to play politics that run rampant in city hall. much like a lot of societies that have failed in the past, by chopping down the last tree in their environment, this ordinance seeks to take away what little respect and dignity most humans have in their neighborhood which is lack of overpopulation and a little bit of space. it also takes away people's skyline and compromises people's neighborhood because it adds a

lot of density. basically it tries to rework san francisco's historical planning codes which, by the way have been bought and paid for by the people in the city that seem to have no respect for voting right honest election and basic human dignity towards residents in the city. where is the environmental impact of an ordinance that all of a sudden allows people to jump into your neighborhood and build a dwelling? or, allow a dwelling or another person to all of a sudden live in your neighborhood, when previously they didn't. a bill of

overpopulation. >> thank you, sir. are there any other members of the public for this item? if you will please line up to your rights, my left, the floor is yours yet >> my name is karen curtis i'm a practicing architect in san francisco. i'm here today in support of this ordinance. we really think you for creating a path forward for density, and more livable city. our residential districts cover more than half of the lamb in san francisco but hold under 30 percent of the population. as the growth increases we need more places for people to live. i do appreciate this ordinance. i'm going to read one sentence from a letter in support. this is a well-crafted limited in scope to sections of the planning code and rh districts and promotes the creation of more and better residential units in those districts. it is

in support of this proposal. we are just reading the amendment so that will get taken back to our committee. we are definitely in support. and without it would like to turn this into the court. >> good afternoon. i am chair of the public policy and advocacy committee i am here to week in support of this legislation and to think the supervisor and staff are hard work to create common sense initiatives that streamline the code and also promote the kinds of housing development that we would all like to see here. i would like to take one moment to refute what we heard earlier which is simply to say that we as citizens of the city and county and of the state and frankly of this planet need to do our part to house and sustain our population in pattern that are smart growth and make sense. i believe this legislation represent some of that and we need to shoulder the burden. thank you.

>> thank you. no other members of the public prior item number one. public comment is closed. the matter is before the committee and supervisor mandelman. i just had one question. what is the impetus for the notion that flat roofs may be replaced with a pitched roof area does may be subject in your amendments, what is the impotence for that. >> i think the idea is that we are creating more livable spaces that meet code requirement for livability by raising roofs or by converting flat to pitched roofs. >> when we talked about this, as you know the ordinance does allow the addition of dormers.

the idea was these are existing nonconforming buildings they cannot be increased in terms of their square footage or footprint. being able to add a pitched roof and then the planning commission wanted a sentence in there about calculation of height using section 2 six zero. i believe peskin, hopefully that is one you will keep in your amendment. the idea behind a pitched roof, if you have a very small living space you can do things that you can put up into that attic space. the hot water heater, those sorts of things. that would allow you to take more advantage of what is going to be in a lot of cases that will be limited square footage. pitched roofs also last longer. flat roofs tend to leak. a pitched roof will last longer and it's a sounder construction. it was also with the idea of let's make the buildings that we are

building in this city last longer and be a little bit more resilient over time. >> at this point i'm okay with it, it is the recipe for neighbor to neighbor controversy as they will read higher and there will be all sorts of downstream effects. with regard to the ceiling height in existing nonconforming structures, maybe this is a question for mr. sanchez, but they may be increased interior floor to ceiling height of up to four feet. if you have mr. sanchez in existing nonconforming structure let's say you have a sub basement that is three feet. can you turn that into a habitable space at nine feet >> i would think so. to be

honest we have not considered the sub basement question. we are looking at going vertically. we tend to find, as you mentioned more neighbor palms when the envelope is extended up. and this is going underground. >> i see it could go underground, but there's nothing in here that says that these are rooms down under. this could easily be - i mean, couldn't this - with this, i guess there is a provision that says you cannot raise the height? all right. with that, supervisor mandelman anything you would like to add? supervisor safai? >> just to clarify, on your second amendment. what i would probably do, that was my first reaction. we do not want to discourage someone from increasing ceiling height. if

there were a disincentive, and i think the last qualifier in terms of no height to the building would be increased controls for what you are concerned about. i think you could leave the language and say habitable space and that would cover, because it still allows you to capture the promotion of adu if it's there. at the same time, it does give some flexibility for somebody to use the entire envelope. i would be in favor of leaving that there. >> if the sponsor were okay without and you are okay with that. >> i've been a broken record on this issue for a number of years, if not over a decade which is that i'm enthusiastic supporter of the adu program particularly if the adu's are subject to rent control. while

they might not be affordable today, they will be in the future. so, my thrusts here is, if they are an adu subject them to the rent stabilization ordinance. maybe supervisor safai's suggestion is a good one. it is habitable days. but if for an adu would be subject to the provisions of 207 c four. i can modify that accordingly. habitable days or an percent to c4 him c6. subject to the waiver provisions. okay. colleagues. all of these amendment if we take them - >> he is looking answer over there, just want to give him an opportunity. >> on that you might qualify for your language is fine which says

that you could increase the site for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit. you might also add to it say that story, or that height could be used to use the size or add to an existing dwelling unit. >> would speak to the two purposes. if that dwelling unit were rent control.space would be rent control. i think we just came up with language to do that which mr. given her may have to share with other counsel on this. but habitable space, or. you are nodding your head in affirmative, count your? >> i am. deputy city attorney john ebner, in case you do not know me. it is habitable space,

or an adu under 207-c. that has a cost of hawkins agreement. it is attached to the adu, not to other habitable days. and then the number above ground building stories has not increased it applies whether it is a habitable case for an adu. is that what you are after? >> yes, sir. colleagues, why don't we take supervisor mailmen and my amendment as modified by supervisor safai. as to my second amendment would you like to make any motion. >> i will make a motion to that effect and have some other clarifying questions. we have a motion pending. your questions? >> we can go ahead and accept the amendment.

>> without objection we will accept the amendment. >> just to the point about the open space area i think you clarified. by the way, very good job. i know this takes a lot of ended tedious when you get into the different asked x of open space, additional floors controlling for floors. >> nothing tedious about it. the one thing i wanted to talk a little bit more about was the open space area i understand your goal was to increase the open space as a way to encourage the adu. is that the argument here. supervisor peskin put a modifier on that to say you can reduce it a little bit further if you agreed to do this adu under rent control. i just wanted to talk a little bit more about that. >> there is a lot of open space in here. where are you looking?

i'm sorry, go back to your original. i think it is your first amendment, no, sorry, amendment number two, page 4, lines 25 printed changes the maximum required setbacks. oh, that is the front of the building. wait. the part that talks about the rear yard. >> yeah. i mean, we are increasing the required rear yard setback for rm one from 25 up to 30 percent. the goal there is to align it with other residential districts were 30 percent is required. you know it also makes sense than on property where you're only getting one resident or perhaps 2 you would want more rear yard. it seems like a very modest

anti-monster home provision basically. >> did you want to clarify anything on that supervisor transeven? if you reduce it further - >> so, kind of a slightly different conversation. we are also encouraging the creation of cottages, second units through lots and corner lots. when you're doing that you're creating new rear yard between the two buildings. we are saying, gosh, you are adding density and we like that. maybe we should recognize that there may need to be a little bit less rear yard there. supervisor peskin is saying okay, sure, give me a rent control unit. >> i just wanted that clarified. we went through it quickly. i just think sometimes it is good to restate it for the purposes

of the record so everyone is on the same page. i am in full support of that area i think that makes sense. if you're going to give the benefit then you want to receive a better public benefit in return. >> the amendments have been made and we will continue this item as amended to our meeting, one week from today on july 15, without objection. madame clerk, i do not yet see supervisor brown. sorry. that's right, madame clerk we read item number

two. [reading items] >> supervisor mandelman, the floor is yours area >> with apologies to my office for doing two of these. this one may be of narrower interest in that it only affects basically, are mostly affects district. district 8. i will tell you a little bit about this ordinance, and the amendments we are offering. the ordinance before the committee today will make restaurants, arts activities, a variety of institutional uses and general entertainment principally permitted on ground floors. for many of these uses, second floor and above in the upper market nct. it will make conforming changes to the nct-three zoning district that

run along market. it will add formula retail controls to health service uses in upper market and principally permit liquor stores that sell only wine and beer while setting the standard operating conditions around street loneliness for these stores. budget and website of analyst report released earlier this year clearly showed what many neighborhood residents and business owners have known. retail vacancies are problem in upper market. the report suggests that overly restrictive zoning is partly responsible for this growing problem. according to the report between 2015 and 2017 vacancies increased from 85-12 point five percent. most of which were found on market be between dolores and castro. since the data was collected, the problem has was - worsened significantly. the report suggests that among the reasons for upper market vacancies are the conditional use authorization requirements in effect there. and not in effect in other commercial corridors

including nearby valencia street in hayes valley. in upper market it took an average of 332 days from submission of a complete application for an applicant to secure a conditional use authorization. when combined with other permitting requirements the entire process can take years. that means two years of more pay high rent on a storefront that has even open yet. in a neighborhood struggling with vacancies the city ought to be doing anything we can to attract essences and help them open as quickly as possible. that is what we are trying to achieve with this legislation. our office worked with neighborhood stakeholders over many months, eureka valley association and triangle association to develop the zoning changes we are proposing today. the fact that these various groups do not agree on land-use issues. [inaudible] also the dire need for a sub actually easier path for businesses trying to opening one of our open markets. the

first set of amendments removes the philanthropic administrative services used from the planning code. our initial draft of the ordinance included this use as a principally permitted use. the philanthropic administrative services was a used type that had been created to deal with a specific site that made its way into other sections of the code. according to the planning department this is redundant and doesn't need its own designation. the removal of the definition in references to philanthropic services is shown on pages three, lines 324-25, page 5, lines 1-nine. page 19 lines 11-15. the next amendment found on page 5, lines 3-12

modifies our initially proposed sidewalk cleanliness for liquor stores. we are also proposing several changes to the nct-three zoning control table. first of these changes found on page 8 line 11, and page 9 lines 8-nine designating arts activities in the nct-3 activities. the second set of changes to the table found on page 9, lines 1 and six, seven. permitting liquor stores celebrating wine and beer on ground floors. this amendment was a recommendation of the planning commission. finally we have a set of proposed amendment

to the upper market nct zoning table. permits arts activities on third stories on above. that is the same change we are making to the nct three. the final amendment to the table found on page 11, subjects of health service use on the first story that is not a licensed community or free clinic to formula retail controls. i've heard from multiple neighborhood groups that is an over proliferation of retail style health uses is in upper market with our currently

proposed. these businesses have had a deadening effect on the corridor. ensuring that operators interested in coming into upper market will have to engage with the community as part of a conditional use process area smaller health service operators or free clinics will not have to go through the process area there is a change shown in the documents i just handed out that i do not want to have moved today. it is found on page 4, lines 15 and 18, removing the upper market nct from section 145 point four of the planning code. for reasons i'm happy to explain to folks if they are curious. we would prefer not to do that. if you could accept my amendments without that one. trent i am sorry, page 4? >> lines 15 and 18. upon further consideration and discussion we don't actually like that one.

and then actually one further change not reflected in what you have before you is at page 9, line 9. we would like to have the amendment say as defined in section 145 point four, not 145 point one. >> i'm sorry, i am likely to have at least one more non- substantive amendment next week to get it's more than i would subject all of you to today. >> you are saying that the changes you are making today are substantial and will require one week continuance? >> yes area some thank youse again. i want to thank tom for helping us think through some of the stuff, planning staff for their work on the ordinance.

>> any questions from committee members? if not, let's open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public other than tom who should be working for the planning department. >> i am with livable city. i just wanted to thank supervisor mandelman for agreeing to carry this area and we discussed ounce ago this problem of vacant storefronts. it's a problem all over the city, it's not just a problem of deregulation. at the same time we are seeing vacant storefronts we are also seeing skyrocketing rent. we think this problem is not a problem of there is too much retail. you also hear the same planning

circles. we are all going to get stuff over the internet anyway, storefront. not necessary. storefront play a vital role in neighborhoods read if you want to see what high density storefront looks like, walk from this building down to market street. you will see all of those new buildings do not bother to put storefronts and on the ground floor. it does not feel like an urban center. it's really dead at night. storefronts are incredible additions. a very important part of him or her life and walkable communities. on the one hand to things like there should be penalties for keeping storefront vacant for a long time. the other thing is opening up the storefronts to community serving businesses and services that would like to be in them. in france dropped by half you would see a proliferation of fabulous businesses here in san francisco. there's no shortage of desire to put in storefront businesses or services whether

those are art spaces, or whatever. we want to salute supervisor mandelman. tom you have gone to every neighborhood group and talked through the nuances of zoning and come up with a beautifully crafted piece of legislation that fit the upper market. bravo, and we urge all of you to support this legislation. thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you. diego sanchez with the planning department. on may nine, the planning commission did this ordinance, they were in general alignment with this ordinance. they moved to approve modification. they suggested 10 modifications. for liquor stores, the summary would be to provide planning staff with quantitative and standards for the liquor store review. i think that is what is being amended.

thank you. the upper market street, maintain or increase the produce ability of arts and health uses, that seems to be included for the nct three it would be to increase the liquor stores only selling beer and wine. that seems to be happening. for both of those zoning districts, the summary would be to consider arts activities and liquor stores as active uses, and then citywide would be to eliminate the philanthropic services use type for the planning code as well as to include health services in the planning code that are subject to controls. i think those are also being included. this concludes the presentation. i'm here for questions. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public here on item number 2. seeing none yet it will close public comment and if there are no objection i would ask one of my colleagues to make the amendment that are before us

that supervisor madeleine has requested minus the deletion of the applicability provision in section 1 four five point four on page 4 on lines 15 and 18 as described by supervisor found them in as well as changing the aforementioned on page 9. >> may i make a motion to approve the amendments as proposed? >> okay, motion made to that effect by supervisor safai. we will take those without objection and continue this item one week as amended into the meeting of july 15. madam clerk, next item please. congratulations supervisor mandelman forgetting two items amended and continued. >> thank you.

>> [reading items] >> i think we are going to be joined by supervisor brown on this matter that we have heard before, and here she comes. so, with that, perhaps i will turn it over to mr. van hout. before i do that, let me reiterate what we discussed at the last hearing on this item which is, and i

wanted to thank and acknowledge supervisor brown at her office for the amendments that we talked about. at a high level to say that various aspects of this legislation, our local in nature and specific to the district and other portion particularly the portions having to do with the quarter-mile buffer around all of the restricted use subdistricts. they are citywide in nature. what i was hoping that we could ultimately do today is to determine which supervisors and which districts would like to have the quarter-mile buffer around a number of restricted uses as

well as which supervisors and districts would like to limit the bona fide eating place language that is set forth on page 8. hopefully we can come up with those today and get this out of committee. with that, before i turn it over to mr. van hout i will turn it over to supervisor brown. >> thank you. i want to go over this again for everyone. when i introduced this legislation to the committee two weeks ago. i focused my comments on how hard the city makes it first all businesses to open and adapt. my aim in this legislation is to make it easier to reduce cost and delays for small businesses

primarily by removing outdated unnecessary and overly complicated regulations. today i want to briefly underscore how complicated our regulations can be. the last committee i shared with everyone about a coffeehouse in cole valley. they had gone to planning, a year from now, once we do our community outreach and it looks good were going to want to get a beer and wine license. is this going to be okay for us? planning said yes, not a problem. and then they went in a year later after they had community support and said we are ready to get our beer and wine because our business plan had always been to open and have comedy until nine p.m. and then they were told, oh, no, you cannot have this area we made a mistake because you're actually in a mile of a hate street

restriction that applies to alcohol. they cannot get a permit. hayes street is blocks away, it's a different community. what happened is the owners, if i can't get this, i could actually, my business plan doesn't work and i'm going to have a hard time keeping a business. this kind of outcome is bad for business and about for the city on so many levels. if our professional planners on the people trained to read it make sense of our zoning who spend day in and day out with our codes, and are still making mistakes about it - about what it does and doesn't allow. how can we expect all businesses to get it right? i want to offer another quick example. at the last meeting of this committee there was a question raised about buffers for alcohol restricted use, districts in baby on the mission. i asked my calf to take a closer look at these impacts in these areas

area what we found out, really underscores the point of how complicated this really is. we discovered, according to a long-standing planning code, interpretation, buffers don't really apply to the third street alcohol are ud, or mission alcohol su d. if you have a drawn area for a restricted use, there is no buffer zone. if you have one street that is restricted then you have half a mile buffer zone. we didn't even find that out until we started digging further. this was planning actually had to dig further into it. these buffer zone, there was never any buffer zones drawn around the restricted area plans. so, despite staff and others researching those proposed

changes for month, where really actually still discovering new hidden asked acts of the zoning. this is really just too complicated. if it's complicated for our city workers that are working this day in and day out, howard's all businesses supposed to do this. this is just crazy to me. i feel like we need to be transparent and consistent so every day small business owners can read it and understand what they can and cannot do in any city location that they may want to start a city business. i want to turn it over to ben, and have him ask wayne this a little bit more. this is some new that has come into light. thank you. >> before we hear from ben, let me just say a couple of things. i won't associate myself with

supervisor brown's comment. people are human, codes are actually written in black and white, but from time to time planners make mistakes. it is a true fact, it does happen. we all make stakes. having said that, there is actually language, it's interesting, i will get to the language - sorry for intra- myself. it is interesting that the actual maps of the planning department prepare that supervisor brown brought to the committee which were really interesting, and here they are. actually our maps that clearly delineate the buffer zone. there are actually provisions in the code that specifically say, for instance, the hate. one specifically says and shall apply in the mile buffer zone. while there may be

some ambiguity and there may have been planners from time to time made mistakes, the reality is, and i said this at the last meeting a couple of weeks ago that the thrust of the neighborhood commercial district ordinances and the thrust of various restricted use districts are really about neighbors and neighborhoods and the body politic honoring the needs and aspirations of those districts. to the extent that a supervisor, whether it is a district 5 supervisor or a district 6 supervisor says hey, i've constructed with my people and they want to get rid of constricted use districts whether it's for alcohol, other things, or we would like to as supervisor mandelman just did, change what is permitted on

first, second and third floors, or deal with provision. i don't think any of us were alive when the arcade amusement game provisions were stuck in the code and have been outdated since probably i was in college. that makes sense. i guess - making the cities processes more user-friendly is important. also, listen, this happens from time to time which is somebody goes into a space knowing full well that there are certain uses in certain districts, that are prohibited as a matter of law and prohibited for a reason. whether it's oversaturation of liquor licenses or the fact that, in certain areas we don't want to have banks on the ground floor as is the case in north

each because they were deadening to the retail environment. all of these things were there for a reason which doesn't mean the world doesn't change and we don't want to change them. i'm worried about a one size fits all thing. what i was going to say is occasionally somebody comes in they rent a space knowing full well that they cannot turn it into their desired use. and then they go and scream buddy murder to the city and say, the city is tough on small business, but the reality is, they knew or should have known that you couldn't have the bar there because it was inhibited as a matter of law. i'm not saying the case of the coffee shop in cole valley is the case. i am saying, what i am trying to do here, like i said at the beginning. i totally agree with much of the thrust. i think whether it is supervisor walton, who at least wants to be able to talk to his