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 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