Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Restaurants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff proposes simpler restaurant definitions; commission asks for more outreach and continues item to Aug. 4
Summary
Planning Department and Supervisor Mercurini’s office presented an ordinance to consolidate restaurant definitions from roughly 13 categories into three (restaurant, restaurant limited, bar) and remove the video‑store category. The commission heard wide public comment on neighborhood effects, alcohol licensing, saturation caps, and operator conduct and continued the item for more community input to Aug. 4.
Planning Department staff and Supervisor Mercurini’s office presented proposed legislation May 26 to rewrite and simplify the city’s restaurant and eating‑and‑drinking use definitions, aiming to reduce the current patchwork of use categories and make rules clearer for small businesses.
Staff said the current code contains about 13 distinct line‑item definitions for eating and drinking uses that were developed for different concerns in the 1980s and no longer fit the modern marketplace. The proposal would consolidate categories into three new definitions — restaurant, restaurant limited and bar — align size thresholds with neighborhood nonresidential use size limits, permit limited restaurant uses more broadly in NC1/NCT districts, remove the separate video‑store definition, and add standardized conditions to address noise, trash and odor.
Supervisor Mercurini’s aide Rob Selna and staff showed an explanatory animation to illustrate how existing rules can be confusing for entrepreneurs and small retailers. Business groups (including the Golden Gate Restaurant Association and the Small Business Commission) generally supported simplification but flagged concerns about liquor‑license interactions, fine‑dining establishments becoming classified as bars, and how reduced CU requirements might affect neighborhood review.
Community speakers and merchant associations stressed that size, hours, saturation, operator behavior and location can matter more than whether an on‑site alcohol license exists. Several speakers urged retaining conditional use review in sensitive corridors or creating “circuit breakers” tied to saturation thresholds, while others argued that streamlining the conditional use process and standardizing conditions would reduce cost and time burdens for small operators.
Commissioners praised staff work but asked for more neighborhood outreach and for the department to refine how the categories interact with ABC liquor types and neighborhood numerical caps. The commission kept the public hearing open and continued the item to August 4, 2011, to allow additional community engagement and technical refinements.
What’s next: Staff will return in August with refined language, outreach results and recommendations on the two entitlement options discussed (more conservative CU approach versus a preferred option limiting CU growth while codifying standard conditions).
