tv [untitled] November 13, 2010 4:00pm-4:30pm PST
campos has also actvilve been involved in this. and it appears that the zoning component, which this is, has received a lot of support from various folks. we have some public comment, as well. president yee riley: the planning commission? >> the planning commission has not heard this. they will be hearing it shortly, is my understanding, and the time line is to pass this out to the full board in december. commissioners, it is agendaized as an action item but you're not required to take action. and we will have a committee meeting, as well, likely, prior to any action being taken on this item.
president yee riley: open for public comment. seeing none. >> why don't we just go ahead and -- unless someone would like to make a motion to recommend this as is? president yee riley: this is the first time i think i'd like to hear a committee meeting. >> let's just move on with that. >> so we will refer that back to the legislation and policy
committee and staff will send an invitation to the legislative sponsor after this meeting requesting that they attend. president yee riley: next item? >> commissioners, item no. 7 -- discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on b.o.s. file no. 101309, ordinance amending the san francisco planning code by amending section 718.1 and sections 718.42, 718.44, and 718.69a of the zoning control table to allow new full-service restaurants, small self-service restaurants, and self-service specialty food establishments with conditional use authorization and to amend section 718.41 and add a specific provision for
full-service restaurants to allow a bar in conjunction with a full-service restaurant with conditional use authorization; commissioners, with this item, the legislative sponsor, here aide apologizes, she is out of town, and the other aide is unavailable. i want to provide an overview on their behalf so you can have more information. following a review, these controls were placed in the 80s and they prohibited all new eating and drinking establishments in the upper fillmore. this ordinance is similar to other food service changes in other cities, including castro street, union street. this ordinance will allow conditional use full-service restaurants, which can be generally defined as eating first and then you pay later, and it's full waiter service,
small self-service, which would be paying first and eating later and you're generally serving yourself. self-service specialty which is a relatively new designation including uses such as deli and bakery use along with ice cream as another example. those would all require conditional use. large fast-food, which is similar to the self-service but larger use spaces, and bars would continue to be prohibited. bar use would be allowed by conditional use only in conjunction with the full-service restaurant. i may be able to answer some questions if you'd like additional information, but i cannot speak further to the any of the additional rationale or basis behind this change. president yee riley: when is this going to come up?
>> the intent of the supervisor is to have this passed out prior to her expiration of her term. but we did not have specific dates on this. president yee riley: what is the situation. >> can you repeat that? president yee riley: what is the situation in this area? are there plenty or not enough? >> my understanding is the basis were the restaurant uses, whereas in the '80s you had an abundance of them and you needed control to keep it from becoming exclusively restaurant use. over the last 30 years, you've had attrition, changes and turnovers, they've actually become a lack of these restaurant and food service uses
and that would be primarily why they're moving forward with this president yee riley: thank you. >> all these things have to come before the small business commission. i would urge you to vote no on anything that comes up with the sponsor does not bother to come here and discuss it. you had the same thing with bayshore plan. you had the same thing -- each one of these things tonight.
and if the sponsors can't get it together and come -- >> i agree. >> it would be something to do, just an automatic thing, it has nothing to do with what the issue is, if they can't do it -- president yee riley: more public comment? >> i'm totally opposed to this legislation. president yee riley: seeing none, public comment is closed. any discussion? >> do you want to table this one, also? president yee riley: i think someone should present it so we can ask questions. >> may i ask, can staff communicate any conversation they may have had with staff at the supervisor's office? in this particular, i understand what steven had to say about the
previous piece of legislation, but the commission has heard similar pieces of legislation around this type of change to the n.c.d. code with union street, noy valley, upper haight. we've heard a series that are similar to this. so i don't know if staff had any conversation with the sponsor staff and the fact that this type of legislation is very familiar to the commission if. >> director, what i can pass on to you and the commission is that this legislation was introduced only a few weeks ago. we were not able to hear it at the legislation and policy committee. the supervisors staff did respond to our request, did provide some background, expressed her apologies for not being able to make it.
but beyond that, i can't speak further to that. president yee riley: i would like to hear a presentation. >> i agree. president yee riley: before we we -- secretary schulmann: so would the request be to hear it in committee and have the committee make a recommendation to the board or hear it in committee and use that recommendation? president yee riley: i'm okay with the committee to recommend. secretary schulmann: if that's the direction the commission would like to go, staff can send an invitation following this meeting to the supervisor staff for the next legislation and policy committee.
president yee riley: we'll ask that question at the committee meeting. do i have a motion to table this? director dick-endrizzi: we don't want to table it. we want to continue it to the call of the chair, being reassigned to the legislation and policy committee to be heard and depending upon the timing of the schedule, if the board of supervisors, either the legislation and policy committee is responsible, will be permitted or heard again at the full commission for a full commission comment. secretary schulmann: is that a motion? or does this go back to committee? do we need to make a motion? i don't believe so. thank you, commissioners, that will be referred back to committee.
commissioners, would you like items 8 and 9 together? >> yes. >> we will hear items 8 and 9 together, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors to the board of supervisors on b.o.s. file no. 101351, ordinance amending the san francisco planning code by adding section 102.31 to define a mobile food facility, amending section 205 and adding section 205.4 to establish a new category of temporary uses, and amending sections 212, 790.91, 790.93 and 890.90 to clarify that mobile food facilities need not be conducted within enclosed buildings; adopting findings, item 9 -- discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on b.o.s.
file no. 101352, ordinance amending the san francisco police code and san francisco public works code by repealing articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the police code, and transfer regulations to new article 5.8 of the public works code. i want to mention that this item was heard in committee and we did have presentations at that time. and i will defer to the director who can fill you in on the status of these two ordinances as they were heard at the board of supervisors today. commissioners, so, tonight we don't have a presentation from ken rich who led the legislation in conjunction with supervisor duff's office because our office
has been intimately involved in the process. today, these two items were heard at the neighborhood meeting and passed out of committee. i want to make note of for item no. 8, which is the planning code, to recap that in our planning code, we did not have an intermittent use definition, so we now have an intermittent use definition based upon the committee's recommendation for this legislation, the initial time period was a maximum of three days. and based upon the committee's recommendation, it is now six days, up to 12 hours a day, and/or three days up to 24 hours. there's also noticing
requirements when it falls within -- let me just pull out out -- secretary schulmann: director, i have those in front of me. do you want me to recap those, the noticing requirements? director dick-endrizzi: is this this -- yes, okay. actually, did they have a copy of that in their packet? so the neighborhood noticing requirements will apply in certain situations as -- there are some zoning areas that specifically will require it.
also, the amount of space that the mobile food can take up on a private property is 300 square feet and, those this does not necessarily apply to breaken park property. there will be a noticing requirement if it's 50 feet from a residential district, and, again, r.h., r.m., r.o.d. and r.t.o. district. for the planning -- so that's the -- this is now a new piece of definition within the planning code to allow for multiple vending on private property. the process, how the process will go, is that the mobile vendor will apply to the department of public health.
the department of public health will have the vendor go to the planning department and in most cases, the vendor will be able to get the zoning referral signed off at the counter and then take that back to the department of public health. the department of public health will be the permit -- will be the agency that has the permit authorization for vendors on private property. >> i just wanted to ask about the locations, about the width of the sidewalk. director dick-endrizzi: that will be the next piece of legislation. so, is there any particular question.
president yee riley: they took our recommendation, changed it from three days to six days. director dick-endrizzi: and for private property, each location will require a permit. now, with public property, let me walk through -- the core components are removing the regulatory agency from the san francisco police department to the department of public health. we've combined the requirements for the mobile food caterers, the trucks and pushcarts, and they now have, under one piece of legislation, one set of guidelines. so -- and specifically for the mobile food truck, this is going
to significantly reduce the amount of their start-up application and fees, and it will be approximately the same for the pushcarts. the permitting, as i said, the authorizing permitting agency is the department of public works so they need to get their sign-off with the department of public health and fire, if necessary. the vendor -- so we did, through, again, the committee's recommendation of -- this is primarily for the pushcarts at six feet on sidewalks that there's a minimum of six feet and then it will be subject to the department of public works, if there's any other additional a.d.a. considerations that need to be dealt with, they will deal
with the individual venture individually. the hours of operation are from 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., so that this will allow for vendors to be near nighttime entertainment establishments if that should work out. a vendor may also apply to up to five locations per application. as it currently is right now, that when a vendor applies, each location requires an application with the police department, the department of public health and the fire department. what we're changing is that once a truck or a pushcart is certified by the department of public health, they do not need to get a new permit each time unless it's a new cart or a new
truck for that location and the same for fire. but they will need to apply for a permit. you can apply -- you can pay the application fee for each -- up to five locations, though you still have to pay a location fee. you can add up to -- you can have a total of seven locations, though. so we're demarcating it, right now, one vendor cannot have more than seven locations. so there is an exception with grandfathering some certain caterers that they may add up to seven locations for those that have been permitted prior to 1995. the one item that this commission did make a recommendation on, and that is, right now, mobile truck cannot
be within 1500 feet of a school, a middle school, junior high school and high school. the committee made a recommendation to reduce that down to 1,000 feet, and medical marijuana dispensaries are able to be at 1,000 feet. the school district strongly requests that that -- the 1500-foot rule stay. it has to do, from their perspective, it has to do with some economic equity of access to healthy food and so the board -- the board of supervisors on the committee, city operations and neighborhood services, agreed with the school district to keep that in. so, the time -- so basically, a mobile food entity will not be
able to operate within 1500 feet of the school from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., so that particular regulation is staying in place. and then i think one other key component which is very critical is the department -- there's not -- there's not -- there's some basic guidelines that the department of public works has to operate with. there's the hard core of not 1500 feet from a school, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., monday through friday. but apart from that, then the department of public works is going to -- once this passes, is going to start working on developing some administrative criteria and this is -- this is important because it allows, then, the department to be able to respond more immediately
should we need to make any sort of adjustments or changes in terms of how the permitting is happening. i'll just continue on, sorry. the noticing -- excuse me. what i wanted to make note of is the noticing, and that is that a mobile food vendor is going to have to notice, they pick a location, they have an interest in a location, they will have to notice the businesses within 300 feet of the area that the location that they want to be in, and then submit to d.p.w. those names. d.p.w. will mail it out. and if there's no objection within 30 days, then the permit is issued. if there is an objection, then a public hearing is held and the
department of public works will make the determination as to whether the vendor can or cannot be at that particular location. if there is -- if there is an objection, the department of public works approves the vendor, then there will be a renotification of -- 600 feet, and that would go out to businesses and residents. also, there will be penalties for businesses that are -- have complaints after they've received their permits, and if a permit is applied for and is issued but not activated in six months, then the -- then that location is up for somebody else
to apply for a permit. >> i have one question. we were talking about the possibility of developing some sort of materials that would help potential applicants know either which areas are just not allowed, or -- you know what i mean, to give some guidelines in terms of before they go through this whole process, if they have a location in mind, you know, if there could be some materials developed that would indicate whether it might work or not. do you know if any of that was discussed? director dick-endrizzi: that's not part of the legislation. that would be part of the administrative implementation and that would be for -- i mean, our office is going to have to sort of create some of these guidelines anyway, because we're the ones that provide most -- we
talk to most of the vendors that come to our office. so we'll work with the department of -- i mean, department of public works on that. i mean, residential areas are specific, you know, they're not allowed there whatsoever. so there are one-day permits that someone can get if somebody chooses to have a party and wants to have a mobile vendor at their property for a party. so we will be working on those guidelines. we're having discussions with the department of technology to work on g.i.s.ing the permitted locations so that when somebody comes to our office we can pull that up and see what areas are taken and what areas may be available. there could be some creative ways of which vendors could also
work together, which right now, two vendors could not be next to each other the way the current code is. so it could be that two vendors might think that they're complementary and could be next to each other. so -- but we will be working on the criteria. the one component is is that after this passes, d.p.w. will hold a hearing -- their administrative criteria that they're going to be using to -- should they need to conduct a hearing for any other criteria that needs to be developed, like not parking in or putting a pushcart in front of a blue zone or red zone or bus stop, you know. there are certain areas that we will specifically state they can't be. but didn't really think that
those kinds of things really need to be in the legislation. president yee riley: how much time does the business have after they receive the notice of protest? >> there's a 30-day noticing period. the d.p.w. will mail out and there's a 30-day period. >> 30 days? director dick-endrizzi: that's our general standard of noticing, is 30 days for the city. and i also just want to state that, again, the golden gate restaurant association was included in the process, as well, so has approved the legislation. president yee riley: any more questions?
>> steven cornell. i'm not familiar with the legislation but i know the food fares, someone wants to put a food facility, they have to provide sink and drainage facilities for each one of them. but if i go out and see a hot dog vendor out here in front of city hall, there's no sink there. there has to be some kind of consistency. i don't know if they do one or the other, but hopefully that's consistent. director dick-endrizzi: what's not in here is the health code regulations because the health code regulations are very specific and they're slight modifications for one-time event s for street fares as