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 constituents

about shrinking a buffer that may or may not be applicable, but two weeks ago planning thought it was applicable then, and it's kind of bizarre that they now do not think it is applicable. there is language in the code. page 25 that literally says these controls shall also apply within one quarter mile. somebody intended that when it was written. with that, why don't we hear from mr. van helton. >> think you chair peskin, members of the committee and supervisor brown. this is the original presentation plus some additional slides. let's focus about what were talking about. >> perfect. >> just to recap, although i think you are really set the table great in terms of the buffer issues we are talking about. the goal here is to increase opportunities for

retail, restaurants, nightlife witnesses and limited commercial uses. nc-one cluster districts, limited commercial districts. the same of wringing clarity and helping to simplify these buffers is an alignment with the planning department report a decade ago which really highlighted the need that all of these overlapping buffers on these buffers extending point two five miles in different direction there is a questionable impact there. again, just highlight the proposal versus the existing buffers. currently nc one is subject to, in the 710 zoning table it says limited restaurant bar, other on named uses pretty look at the most restrictive

controls of any neighborhood commercial district within a quarter-mile oregon otherwise default to that and c-1 zoning. for limited commercial uses to determine you look at the most restrictive controls of any named neighborhood commercial district within a quarter-mile. our proposal is essentially to do three things. the parcels themselves to changing from a quarter-mile districts of measuring any named ncd to a three-quarter distance. to go from the most restrictive of any ncd within a quarter-mile. and then third to eliminate buffers around restricted use districts entirely although some of those buffers don't exact exist as it turns out. >> i don't know if that is true. i know that has been alleged he had you are the office of economic and workforce development. the planning

department produced the map that shows those buffers and the map that is in front of us. this is an argument seven issue of fact and as of a few minutes ago, we have a state rent that it does not apply. i just read provisions in the code that specifically says it does apply. i'm not being argumentative, it is unclear to me. >> can i just say something. this is the point. >> the planner that told the coffee house that yes, you could go ahead. it wasn't a mistake. they looked at it and said yes you can. the other planner that said no, they looked at the codes. when we were diving deep into this after the last committee meeting what had happened, because we were asking a bunch of questions chair peskin that you had asked during

the last committee meeting. and then we actually, i think it was late night call or text from scott sanchez saying actually, there is no buffer around the larger restricted zones. so, i think this is the whole point, it is so confusing that we all have a different - everybody has a different answer. this is why trying to have more of a uniformed consistency of what our restrictions are especially first all businesses, people coming into trying to find out what they can open and what they can't. >> i appreciate that. i have not seen mr. sanchez, who by the way is no longer the zoning administrators late night text message. i have nothing but respect for the office of economic work for us develop men. they are not the planning department. i would really need to hear this and understand

this. what is being stated for the record is that when you have one treat restricted use district the quarter-mile applies. when you have larger district of the quarter-mile does not apply. look. let's be clear. what does the zoning administrator do. they make interpretations in instances where the law is not abundantly clear. this happens all the time because there aren't tenses that nobody ever thought of and that is why the zoning administrator exists in the city and county and cities all across america. it is a commonplace governmental function in planning. there are interpretations that are written by previous zoning administrators that sometimes are not followed by current zoning administrators. for instance, if you look at volume

3 of the three volume planning code. at the back of that are a number of public shushed - - - published interpretations which really have the weight of law. having said that. i have a situation in the district that i represent where i actually have introduced legislation to fix this where the abandonment. the zoning administrator claims has run, but there is a zoning administrator interpretation that says, it's a published interpretation that if the business has been working in good faith and due diligence to open pursuant to that use that the use is not abandoned. we have a new zoning admin strata who does not believe in all past our was at planning for 37 years, published interpretation. which means we've got to go and pass legislation. having said that, i am totally unclear as to

whether or not the representations made by the previous zoning administrator are true or untrue. anyway back to you. >> i make no representation to speak on behalf of, or the planning department. yes it was an email confirming it did not appear that any existing code provision challenged the validity of that interpretation. secondly, just a brief technical point. in mentioning that the hayes street district does specifically say a quarter-mile, which it does. it is my impression that that is the only one that actually does specifically mention a quarter-mile. otherwise we would have had to amend the others in proposing this legislation. the others probably do not say one way or another. in any event - this is our map of the city. the request was made to quantify

impacts on some levels. here's a district by district breakdown of nc one districts and limited commercial uses. another takeaway we had from the last hearing was to talk with the supervisors offices to get a sense of how people felt about the buffers to brief them on the existing buffers, and highlights where there are questions and also on the potential impacts of the legislation. right now we do not have any proposed opt outs on this legislation. i will say we are continuing to talk with the d10 office, given this question around the buffers, did not exist previously. i'm happy to go through, i have slides on the district by district basis and i'm happy to talk about any of this if it would be helpful. otherwise, i think - i stated for the record that i don't

think the lower polk restricted district wants in. let me get your language clear. nobody you have talked to wants to have the quarter-mile, whether it exists or doesn't exist removed? explained that. >> based on our conversations with other supervisors offices, over the past two weeks nobody - none of the supervisors have indicated an interest in preserving a quarter-mile buffer around restricted use districts area the caveat we are continuing to talk to the district 10 office around the issues without buffer. i hear you to say, the lower polk would prefer the quarter-mile buffer. >> i believe that to be true. i represent those people. i also heard from united to save the

mission relative to their 389 alcohol permits in the mission that they were not excited about shrinking their zone either. i will leave that to their elected representative to determine. i think supervisor bowen wanted the opportunity to talk to his constituents as i indicated in an earlier meeting. the third street alcohol restricted use district was actually a recent creation. >> i talked to him chair peskin today, and informed him that there is no buffer around that. he was like well, i guess it doesn't. if he wanted to draw the area further out, he would want to go out and speak to his constituents. >> understood. i still would like to have cory say for the record or send us a piece of

paper that says he believes that to be true, and that is the way the planning department interprets it. if that is the case, we are not arguing over anything or yet if that is not the case - then we may want to amend this to include the kind of language that is on page 25. i think lower polk would want that language. they think they currently have that language. tran21 further thought on this, the buffers around read - there is also sorts of other commercial and other mixed use districts in many parts of the city were buffers do not apply. my point is, in edition two, as we see it, confirming this existing zoning. there is real value and not only clarity, and

simplifying, but in rationalizing the way these districts apply. so that, the quarter-mile buffer actually leapfrogged in many districts a number of parcels where the restrict use district does not apply. to apply to some parcel much further away. it's about both clarity and confirming what we believe to be what is an existing interpretation of the planning code, but also to right size the buffers, given all the places they do not apply. i have a slight here on this interpretation. since we have talked, i don't know if there's any need to talk further about it. >> we all have the july 2009 interpretation of section 1 eight six in front of us. >> that concludes my presentation paren i'm happy to talk about or field questions or whatever you prefer. >> the bigger question of data

as to quantifying how many, and in what district properties this applies to. i think your slide deck includes information about that as well. let's go through that, too. >> i would just come back to that. that will take a little time. there are copy - copies of these maps over on the stands. >> this is the district by district breakdown of limited commercial uses and also nc one districts between all of the districts. again, not every nc one district is impacted by buffers area there are buffers where there is not a named ncd within a worded mile. were they just default to nc one as is area and then there are other nc ones that are impacted by the buffers area again, the only two

changes for commercial use are to the nearest ncd as to the most restrictive and then again this restricted use district to get >> in the case of the first in d1 and so far as there is not another neighborhood commercial district outside of the ncd, right. so you have two. you have the outer and inner. what - which one is the more restrictive. if you are located within the buffer. everything to the east there is no buffer, it's just an c1. >> relative to the supervisors formula drinking and pet stores when he was trying to save everything from pet food asked us. how does that work. >> that district would apply to

gary boulevard. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. i was referring to the previous supervisor. [laughter] sorry. >> beyond, so that district, the buffers around the are you d go away. so then the inquiry would be is that in an c1 or an lc you. if it's in and see when you look at any lcd with any fee. >> think you. this has been somewhat confusing for me as well. can you walk with me through the district 6 so i understand. there's broader bubble type things that i've been told actually do not have

much of an impact. i want to understand what is going on here. i do not have an an c1 in district 6. but i have some of the other kind of areas and potential buffers. what would be the impact of this legislation on district 6 >> you have a lot of other mixes of land use within the district. but, because you do not have an an c1. for lc you, the proposal is to look at the nearest ncd within a quarter-mile as opposed to the most restrictive. if you are lc you, it's much closer to somo benitez folsom. you don't have any restricted use districts in your district either. eliminating the buffer

around use districts will not impact you at all. >> accept the tip for lower polk. >> that is correct. >> would only be if the buffer overlapped with an nc-one. because it doesn't do that, or an lc you and because it doesn't do that. the only impact that this would have on district 6 for example are on the lc use, which is fairly limited number, in which ncd would be referencing. it looks like it's about equidistant. >> on the bona fide eating places currently is the

restricted? >> the goal here is to strengthen live music venues on support venues by restricting burdensome requirements. the goal here is to support all ages and entertainment. with what we know to be the operations of entertainment spaces to get currently as a bit of background, entertainment venue that wants to admit patrons of all ages has a restaurant license. in getting a restaurant liquor license they have to operate as a restaurant. under the local code, operating as a restaurant means operating as a bona fide eating place. that is where the set of dominoes that get us to an entertainment venue. i should note, there is also a bona fide public eating place definition in the state law that authorizes the liquor licenses you'd which is largely similar to our bona fide eating

place with two exceptions. those are the exceptions we are seeking to reconcile with this legislation. the first is that the local fire bona fide eating place requires that a business draw 50 per - 51 percent of its sales and that has language about days and hours of operation including a minimum of five days a week. those are the two pieces we are targeting where there's a difference between date code on the local code. it really has a specific burden on entertainment venues. there are a variety of long-standing historic, all ages entertainment venues that have restaurant licenses. i think may not be drawing 51 percent from food sales area we have seen what we don't have any planning department of force that, to my knowledge right now we have seen the abc go after businesses on some of these issues.

>> they do that pursuant to state law not to local law. >> i know. my point was that just because something is not an enforcement issue today, if it's not right size to the existing realities on the ground it could be an issue in the future. i do suspect that there are so many rick harmon for an entertainment venue to operate. some of the most layered permitting on other requirements in the city that we should be trying to right size and calibrate our requirements for them so we can support the venues going away to support new venues this legislation would amend the definition of bona fide eating place to exempt from the 51 percent any place that satisfies all of the following criteria. you have hit all of these. operate as a restaurant on a nighttime entertainment use which is important because to be a nighttime entertainment use you have neighborhood notification and in order to

establish that use onto the planning code. nighttime entertainment use in many district is restricted. you have to only provide on-site alcoholic beverage sales by ticket holding patrons on the premises. only provide alcoholic beverage sales two hours before, during and one hour after entertainment activities. they are drawn from state law. there is a state liquor license, type vi t4 theater liquor license which is in i license issued to nonprofit theaters that allows them to serve alcohol without any food service requirement. again, by ticket holding patrons. all of that is to mirror a concept that appears to be working pretty well. under the state approach. finally we have added a, alcohol sales do not exceed eight hours a day. the goal was to identify some sort of that would serve as a

backstop of sorts. really, the goal is to provide a pathway for venues that can operate entertainment for a good number of hours and employee local performers while they do it. only venues eating all of this criteria will be exempt. they still have to comply with the liquor license. i realize, it should be implied here, they would also need an entertainment permit to do entertainment activities go through that. >> currently written that would apply citywide. although in your amendment your wanting to restrict it. it's not within a certain - i would change the definition everywhere. >> we talked about the idea of limiting to us certain district.

this like a structural issue. there's a type of business that we know is a square peg for a round hole across the city. and that it's a type of business that has important to people across the city. limiting it to a certain district where okay maybe 3-for venues could take advantage of it. what is the difference come again, based on the way we have tried to tailor it to require come again, all of the different steps, this is a bona fide eating place that applies citywide. 20 thank you. - - - >> thank you. what was the policy reason for san francisco's definition of bona

fide eating place? >> again, i do not mean to put words, i do not speak on behalf of the planning department on enforcement. i think, what i would say, this is my impression of it. there is a very reasonable and good faith desire to separate out restaurants and bars. to at least create some method of defining categories. that makes trying to define out what a use is, that is the planning code, they're all different types of uses. when we have, you know, a subset of those uses which are wearing two different hats at the same time. if it doesn't - if we can see that some of the pieces of one of those requirements doesn't fit and could potentially be really burdensome and negatively impactful and we are in the process of trying to use remind and simplify the code to support a variety of uses to support,

you know, vibrant overheads. that this seems like an opportunity to just smoothed around the edges without throwing out the concept without obliterating it entirely. >> i'm on clear, let me take a step back. i think the notion that you just said which it was to differentiate a restaurant from a bar. the notion is people who consume alcohol while they are also consuming food become less problematical to society because they are less hammered, is that a fair statement as to why we differentiate between restaurants and bars? >> i'm not going to eat to - two, that's farther than i can speak to on the intent. i think

defining uses is about segmenting one thing from the other thing. again section 102, the definitions are full of uses that are trying to segment out when used from the next. an entertainment venue that also operates as a restaurant by the structure of it has to have 2 uses area because under 703, nighttime entertainment use cannot be an accessory use. we have sent businesses, directed businesses, we being the planning code, direct businesses to where both of these uses as principal uses without providing a clear way of reconciling that we know for certain business models not all of it makes sense. >> what i'm trying to say in plain english is - we want, we

welcome late night entertainment. we are all distraught about the reduction in the number of venues that we all know and love, supervisor haney introduced some legislation all we are saying these venues, this narrow set of venues, hits all of these bullets on the other bullet of

having entertainment. the only pieces we are opting them out of our the 51 percent gross receipt and the days and hours of operation. all the state requirements on the bona fide public eating places where you do have to serve food. all of that still applies and i think i would push back on the notion that this is somehow allowing people to throw their hands up and saying we do not need to serve food anymore. >> the alcoholic beverage commission does enforce relative definition of bona fide which they do not enforce our law. apparently we don't enforce our laws either. this does not change state law. >> my point is that there are both state and local requirements that would remain requiring the preparation and actual service of food. that would still be, the increased version of legislation exempted

businesses. well, i don't know inconsistent with state law. in any event we would try to right size and focus and on, in order to preserve planning enforcement, but also to focus on in on the two relatively all pieces that again preserving the rest of the food service requirement. these two pieces which i think we can say with some reasonable certainty do not fit the entertainment venue. the way that that business, that the purpose built entertainment business operates. there are a lot of businesses, the vast geordie of businesses which surely would not want to take advantage of these civic

limitations that it imposes. trying to find a narrow set of businesses that have to operate in this respect how can we have narrow paths forward for them. >> if i may. one clarification. when it comes to an eating establishment. i feel like i have some authority on this. we do actually enforce that. they are supposed to be serving enough food to hit that 51 percent and we do not believe that they are. we do actually go out and require them to submit receipts. we do visual audit. as

such as our department saw this as an issue trying to clarify how we would enforce to be a complaint in the future. we felt we are branching out permits, we are okay from the food sales

area >> thank you. this is why want to hear from mr. t who is our represent that you don't enforce. i would like to hear as to the other issue that is the subject of the alleged text message or late night email whether or not to section 186 with the actual planning department is in charge of the buffer zone does or not you. >> thank you. i did not want to make any representation about the enforce, but the planning department is enforcing on and how they are enforcing on it. i guess i will leave it there. >> why don't we open this up to public comment. >> i don't understand all of the

particulars. if this has anything to you do with selling alcohol throughout the night until five a.m. like scott reno wants to do. i object to doing that. you're going to increase the amount of automobile accident because of drunk driving. we already have enough drunk driving taking place on the freeways and people getting killed, as it is. i don't know what the hell scott weiner is talking about extending hours where you can drink alcohol in bars all the way till five o'clock in the god damn morning and then how people drunk having people commute and getting up at five a.m. commuting to their god damn job, working 40 hours a week. what the hell is wrong with scott weiner? i am not to his procedures and his housing discrimination giving preferential treatment to high income brackets as well. it is disgusting. if this got anything to do with you extending the amount of hours of people drinking alcohol, i object to that. i came here late, maybe

it's not, maybe i'm wrong. does it have anything to do without? okay then. we would just address that to scott weiner them. [laughter] >> next speaker, please. >> bruce wolf representing alcohol justice today. we oppose this. completely. it is way too complicated. it is a kitchen sink. it is so hard to tear apart and figure out what each party is trying to do, then how they interface with each other. those of us that are highly educated enough to have some planning idea, it is not enough time for us was on the public to be able to figure it out. maybe it would be better separate all of these items, arcade, patios, adjust, second and third floor commercial, the bona fide eating places. not have it "all lives matter" one one piece of

legislation. we would like to see more analysis with regards to the increase in density of alcohol licenses and alcohol sales with regards to the health and harms on the community. there was a budget and legislative analyst report, exactly on that that the board of supervisors had not had a hearing on that will have a direct - should have a direct voice on changes exactly like this. we do demand a continuance. if not, not to let this move forward and have it come through in a different way. we would like to see maps that show the difference in the revision. what was introduced and what the revisions are, it really makes it much more complicated. there are businesses that get special sensations for alcohol sales like mission bowling and miniature golf indoor club

comedy clubs and whatnot. why, into a different district and cause problems. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am here as a constituent of vallie brown i'm grateful to see your take on businesses. the july 2019 addition of san francisco parking magazine has a column dedicated to this issue from 2 commercial real estate agents. while not fond of the industry. the advice they give

to clients is revealing. we cannot expect ordinary people to open a neighborhood serving business when they need rich investors, a years worth of patients and a consultant paid by figures to tell them how to navigate the process. where is the public input from neighborhood notification, discretionary review, conditional use authorizations are hurting local businesses. the budget and legislative enema office wrote a report for supervisor mandelman which shows

this. we need a deficient process that makes it easy to fill storefront. this bill will not fix everything, but it is a good start. i hope an upcoming ballot initiative to tax empty storefronts will also help. thank you. >> hello. my name is eve mcguire, i am the owner of the coffeehouse in call valley. i open the shop after years of working in san francisco as a barista and manager. i wanted to bring my passion for high-end coffee to a neighborhood that did not have it. i had cole valley on my radar for this for years before figuring out how to do it. as part of my extended business plan i did want to be able to transition into including evening hours where i could host live entertainment shows, namely standup comedy and

serve beer and wine to generate the additional revenue that i would need to do all of this. you know, as you guys have talked about a little bit, i was told by the planning department, in 2017, prior to opening that it looked like i was clear of this buffer zone that restricts the from applying for the beer and wine license. i think i am like 50 feet from being clear of it, which, you know, it is sometimes a little confusing to look at on the map. depending on, you know, who you talk to at the planning office and what else you are going over. at times these things do get misinterpreted. i think that is what must've happened. when i called them earlier this year, just a few months ago i was given different information. this is a shame for my business.

for cole valley that want to see me do these things that i want to do to improve the neighborhood. these small businesses are really important to people in san francisco. i think we pride ourselves in having standards for high quality. people come from all over the world to ask grant. a lot of people who live here - >> thank you, sir. >> sorry. so you are done with me? >> we have to give everybody the same amount of time. thank you. >> first of all i want to commend an employer supervisor regarding the vacant storefronts that we have all over the city. putting some pressure on these

property owners for the storefronts. the question comes up, if somebody was out the storefront, how can they be successful. online shopping is the thing that is happening, we all know that. i think this honestly, to use this proposed is a good use area i've talked to so many people about this and everyone is so excited about this. one of the big things we do have, is wine walks. i really feel that this ordinance, i would hope that she would pass. it is going to benefit a small business. if bob businesses to be successful and make the city what it can be. right now we are not there. i think if we do that, you will see a more vibrant and a better city by

allowing these uses. [inaudible] i do appreciate what you have done so far. i'm really glad that at least we are doing something about it to get those storefronts filled up. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello supervisors. i am representing the san francisco chamber of commerce. as you know we have over a thousand businesses as part of our membership by the chamber of commerce. many of those are large businesses, what i find most interesting, several of those businesses don't even exist yet. we have several members who sign up looking to start a small business in san francisco. they sign up with us months ahead of time knowing it will take several month of two years together the permitting process area it really is something when our permitting process first all business

requires a small cottage industry - and bank accounts of small businesses in order to make sure they are successful even in breaking ground or opening up their storefront. there was a public comment around a previous item that spoke around the storefront or vibrant commercial corridors but we cannot agree more. these small businesses are critical to the vitality of our city. they deserve an opportunity to thrive and succeed by providing entertainment, providing alcohol by providing flexible options for them to service their customers. we give them more options to succeed. finally, on the question of the buffer. for us, this is a question about commercial corridor integrity. it has made the decision about what kind of zoning it would like to have in's area. they have made that decision and a business has complied without decision. another corridor from half a mile away should not be able to override another

merchant corridors decision. that is exactly what is happening here. another corridor from a different neighborhood is overriding what another neighborhood has decided his best for its merchant options. thank you. this whole notion, i don't think that supervisor brown is misrepresenting her legislation. the vast geordie of it there is no disagreement on this body. this is not going to fill up every vacant space and the commercial district i don't want us to oversell what this does. the reality is there are restrictions around, certain types of uses, and other types of uses are permitted as of

right. those are neighborhood serving businesses that we are all yearning for. remember the thrust of this is around alcohol and late-night entertainment. next speaker, please. >> thank you for the opportunity to seek today. an ordinance that will allow [inaudible] small businesses are

essential to san francisco's [inaudible] we strongly urge the board to offer your support. thank you. >> thank you supervisors. my name is bridget lee. i want to affirm our support for this much-needed code alignment. small businesses are the backbone of our economic diversity and community identity. this would indeed tingle our unnecessarily convoluted permitting requirements removing barriers to entrepreneurship by providing clarifications and regulations. >> good afternoon supervisors had we see this has legislation has massive implications for

residents and business owners area we don't think this legislation is the solution for the problem that they are specifying. as supervisor mandelman did in his district. we haven't seen that kind of a consultation. let's not make legislation based on anecdotes area removing the buffer zone would allow a few marginal parcels to be able to serve alcohol and have other kinds of entertainment. that will not help the core business districts. in fact it would make it harder to fill the core business district, because the other small parcels out around would draw business away from

them. those parcels could be rented out. we need a balance between controlling the liquor store blight in various neighborhoods on other types of businesses that have restaurants and late-night entertainment. many of these districts we have people living above, behind, and around and having arcades, late-night entertainment and has severe impacts on the residence. we've got to think about some of the bigger picture here, and look at many ways to solve the problem. this is not the solution for solving vacant properties on commercial streets. thank you. >> good afternoon. [inaudible] my first thought was maybe supervisor mandelman should have stayed for this one. looking at this map it is

startling. district 8 has 20 mc one, and the highest number of lc use. 945. i highly doubt if the people in district 8 are going to go for this, particularly this corridor or overhead, please area - - please. this is only part of district 8. you can see those little boxes that are actually lc use area not to mention the pink ones all throughout the church corridor. this is going to be a huge impact not only on the residence, but also on the merchants on 20 fourth street. imagine a restaurant on 20 fourth street that serves alcohol and food. if you're going to have more competition, obviously this is not going to look good. i am sure the merchants on 20 fourth feet were

not consulted about this area i am sure the residents were not consulted about this area i am absolutely surprised for a bill that is going to have a huge impact on the entire city of san francisco has been basically on a very dormant stage, not any outreach and here we are discussing, you know, the same name about storefront. this has nothing to do with the storefronts being empty as supervisor peskin mentioned himself he had i doubt if this is going to change the pattern on 20 fourth street. we need to help the merchants on 20 fourth street. this has nothing to do with that. i urge you to give us decent outreach, particularly for district 8. district 8 will be highly impacted. we haven't heard enough about this. thank you. >> any other members of the public would like to testify on item 3 come if you line up to your right, my left. >> good afternoon supervisors,

louisville and making san francisco great again coalition. talking to you about doing business in in the swamp, which is what san francisco is. pay to play politics has produced a swamp like quality for small business, in san francisco. what we are looking at is the collateral damage of the board of supervisors failed dropping the ball policies. and now we are seeing vacant storefront, and complete apathy in our neighborhoods. not even mcdonald's can do business in san francisco. let alone a small business. you only have to look at hate and and and to see that effect. yes, you have created this mess for the last 10 years

by focusing on political, pay to play politics, special interest. what does it achieve a? a ghost town. that is what hate street is. the first time probably in 100 years that that area has looked so sad and pathetic. a clear sign of institutional dropping the ball. so, i advised, and i request san francisco to get out of the business of special interest politics and pay to play politics. thank you very much. >> any other members of the public for this item? public comment is closed. supervisor brown? >> yes, thank you. i have to say the majority of supervisors that we have talked to in their offices have said they are in

support or they are neutral on this. i also know that every supervisor will definitely want to talk to their neighborhood. really discuss the ncd buffer zones. to see where they should go, or not go. but, i also have the email from scott sanchez, and corey, who is the zoning administrator that says their interpretation is the fact that the buffer zones around the larger areas - excuse me, there is no buffer zone further out. when the ones that are drawn,

are the actual zone. i'm trying to make the symbol for everyone. do i think we need to god and talk to neighborhoods, absolutely. i know hate street wants to keep its restricting zone. i absolutely believe without. i'm removing the buffer zone around it. the merchants passed the panhandle on hayes is not affected by them. the merchants around cole valley is not affected by them. there will be a 300 foot buffer zone on haight street for any of those businesses that go half a block in. definitely feel like, you know, if the neighborhood wants that they can keep that. it's just the merchant core doors near there. i know i had a constituent talk about the competition on haight street.

all of our corridor areas whether they are commercial, all are held or the larger enterprise owned. they are all important. everyone feels really close on passionate about their corridor. whether it is cole valley over in the panhandle, or haight street. i completely agree with that. so, i just feel, for me, since this is so confusing for everyone, and there are different interpretation that we should try to clean this up for everyone to be consistent throughout the city, so everyone understands it. if a district wants to opt out because there supervisor feels that it's very important, i feel that is great. that's fine. if we could see some consistency across the board, i think were going to make it much easier for anyone that wants to start a business i

would love to see this forward, once again like i said we checked in with the supervisors, and almost the majority of supervisors have said it's either they were neutral or they supported it. thank you. >> thank you supervisor brown. i think we are down to two issues. one is the application of the bona fide eating place exemption, and the other is the issue with regard to the restoration, or opting in and out, in or out of the quarter-mile buffer zone around restricted use subdistrict. i think - i mean, this is an easy thing to do. i would prefer to have supervisors opt in then opt

out. i know my staff contacted supervisor fewer's office who is in the midst of reaching out to merchants and folks in her district. i know supervisor brown, you indicated that you would talk to supervisor walt. i have not come although you indicated that supervisor ronan was okay. with not restoring as i mentioned, the mission was concerned given the startling number of 389 permits in the district area i have heard from the lower pole folks who got by predecessor to pass alcohol restricted use district for that

area which the board renewed and extended in time a couple of years go. there are a couple ways to go about this, one would be i am ready to offer amendment that clarify that the bona fide eating place exemption would apply to the areas within district 5. i am happy to expand that to other supervisors and their districts as they asked to be included. and, as for the quarter-mile buffer zone, i would still like to know whether or not, and how that has been actually applied despite the email that supervisor brown reference i have not yet seen it

nor have i heard from mr. teague or mr. sanchez, and i would like to hear from not. it's interesting that they are not here today. i don't know if you have anything you would like to add about section 1 eight six and how it has or has not been applied. we do have a gentleman from cole valley who says it has been applied. i don't know what the truth is. >> absolutely. we did pass this question along to scott sanchez, the former zoning administrator. cory teague, our current zoning administrator was on vacation at the time. scott sanchez did state in the email that he he cced myself on that supervisor brown read. if you would like