About shrinking a buffer that may or may not be applicable, but two weeks ago planning thought it was applicable then, and its 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 dont 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. Lets 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. Ncone 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 quartermile oregon otherwise default to that and c1 zoning. For limited commercial uses to determine you look at the most restrictive controls of any named neighborhood commercial district within a quartermile. Our proposal is essentially to do three things. The parcels themselves to changing from a quartermile districts of measuring any named ncd to a threequarter distance. To go from the most restrictive of any ncd within a quartermile. And then third to eliminate buffers around restricted use districts entirely although some of those buffers dont exact exist as it turns out. I dont 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. Im 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 wasnt 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 cant. 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 quartermile applies. When you have larger district of the quartermile does not apply. Look. Lets 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 arent 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, its 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 weve 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 quartermile, which it does. It is my impression that that is the only one that actually does specifically mention a quartermile. 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. Heres 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. Im happy to go through, i have slides on the district by district basis and im happy to talk about any of this if it would be helpful. Otherwise, i think i stated for the record that i dont think the lower polk restricted district wants in. Let me get your language clear. Nobody you have talked to wants to have the quartermile, whether it exists or doesnt 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 quartermile 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 quartermile 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 doesnt. 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 quartermile 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. Its 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 dont know if theres 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 im 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. Lets 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, its 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] im 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 its 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. Theres broader bubble type things that ive 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 quartermile as opposed to the most restrictive. If you are lc you, its much closer to somo benitez folsom. You dont 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 ncone. Because it doesnt do that, or an lc you and because it doesnt 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 its 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 youd 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 theres a difference between date code on the local code. It really has a specific burden on Entertainment Venues. There are a variety of longstanding 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 dont 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 its 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 onsite 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. Its 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. Theres a type of business that we know is a square peg for a round hole across the city. And that its a type of business that has important to people across the city. Limiting it to a certain district where okay maybe 3for 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 Franciscos 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, theyre 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 doesnt if we can see that some of the pieces of one of those requirements doesnt 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. Im 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 ham