asking to evolve into a wine bar and almost the same experience, slightly different in this regard. you're still pooring the wine into the glass and the customers may make a purchase off the rack. the place is so comfortable neighbors got together, they have a conversation, and instead of purchasing the bottle they want another glass and that's what the experience changes, and that's what makes it. it's a subtle difference, a technicality but in fact a difference, and that's he's here asking for permission to evolve into something that the neighbors have supported for almost seven years, so we can regress, go back, reconfigure the space. probably make the business unsustainable. probably another vacancy which is not good, or we can move forward and get in compliance and what we can do here is keep

the community together. >> next speaker please. >> hi. i am ms. stewart and work as a accountant. i like poor house and it's female friendly and makes me very relax and i think the place is one of the safest place being the night time on polk street, so do support the poor house. thank you. >> any additional public comment? okay. public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> mr. crawford just a couple of questions. i assume what this particular establishment has and will have is a type 42 and beer

and wine only. >> that's correct. >> so that isn't changing and i guess the distinction and i remember 2005 and these are tricky and subtle. you have what i guess was a retail establishment accessory liquor sales. that is beer and wine sales and now we're saying we're moving it to a category of bar -- >> well, it was approved to be bar and retail store and accessory of tasting but the motion recognizes that what they're asking for is a bar. that the cu that had to be granted under the planning code was the same as for a bar, but all through the motion the findings discussed the fact it's not a bar. it's a tasting room. that the commission is doing this

exceptional granting of a permit for a bar because that's the only mechanism to allow tastings within the abc -- excuse me, the alcohol beverage commissioner's licensing scheme. the conditions of approval state that it's for tastings only, but that was the idea. it would be basically a retail wine shop. you could go in and saw a bottle of wine and liked it and have a tasting or occasional tasting event and someone would come in and display wines for tasting but not drink glass after glass of the same bottle of wines what they didn't want to get into. >> for this time we have to call it a bar and only beer wine and primarily engaged with certain amount of retail sales. >> yes it is a bar. they are serving alcohol by the glass.

it is just beer and wine. it's a wine bar. >> okay. thank you. i have some comments. >> thank you commissioner. >> i of following this for a while. i am surprised there is this late opposition to this particular establishment because i had this report for a while and aware this was coming up and yeah i am surprised that if there were these problems with noise or other issues that the neighborhood groups or those that were impacted by the establishment had not brought something up during this time, and all of a sudden it's an issue now so that is interesting and the use is not changing from what it's been but the use is not technically what they have been asking for. they need the approval by us to have their use to conform to what we're doing as opposed to the previous cu which was more limited -- although the distinction sometimes is rather vague because we went through the

same thing at westportal and the proprietor suffered a fire and not in business anymore but we went through conditions in that case had real specifications and you will only have so many chairs and strict conditions. i don't remember in 2005 -- there could be 20 people have a wine tasting at the same time under the approval of 2005. i can't recall a specific limitation on the tasting going on, but with that being said there is a lot of local support for it. there are some people speaking against it again and there are a couple neighborhood groups just recently come out against it. they may not have been in support at any time but recently we're hearing they're opposing it, but you always have to make a distinction between the neighborhood groups and do a lot of good things and focus our

attention on things but they don't represent all the people in the neighborhood and sound like there are a lot of merchants and residents that are in favor of this, and the other thing i like -- i too am familiar with the area and a few years back it was worse than it is now and my focus on activities such as crime and drug dealing and consumption and panhandling and other things that are disruptive and real threats to somebody's safety. noise is important and it is important and if there are problems with this establishment and it's too noisy at times i am sure the project sponsor is amenable -- i haven't asked him -- to closing the windows at certain hours of the night to make it a little less of impact on the neighbors, but i'm kind of a believer that sometimes the good drives out the bad and i certainly think this

neighborhood is improving rapidly and we have to look at the distinctions just between some sort of bar or establishment that serves alcoholic beverages that's a constand problem and those are the ones that we look at a little differently that of compliant. although it was not technically complying with the conditions of approval i think it has been operating and attribute to the neighborhood and that's why i am supportive. i have also heard that -- i'm not sure if this is true, but from the testimony this seems like it's more neighborhood serving. it's not the place that has bridge and tunnel crowd and if people come from outside the neighborhood they're mostly san francisco residents. i heard testimony about wine bars and probably true many times people feel more comfortable there because the atmosphere is not as threatening as it is in

the traditional bar, and i've heard two or three people -- women in particular testify to that effect so i am fine with drafting this. i would like to hear if there are issues that need to be e milliated in our approval such as noise because i don't hear any other complaints about this other than it's in operation but it's continuous of existing use. it's not adding any more uses to what is there. >> commissioner hillis. >> a couple of questions from staff. do you know when this moved from retail wine establishment to more of a wine bar? did that happen immediately or over time? >> it's my understanding it happened right away. it wasn't over a course of years. they

started selling wine by the glass right away. >> do you know the hours? >> they're open until midnight and that was conditioned in their motion of approval. >> okay. and the music -- when did that come into play? because my issue is seems like -- it went clearly more retail wine bar with tasting to a wine bar, but seems there are elements that are going beyond that and music and live music and loud music. is it a night club? is it more of a club at this point? do you know when that started? >> i would defer to the project sponsor for that one. >> okay. and the neighborhood associations who retracted the approval as well as the police department did they give you a reason to? >> the lower polk association did. they felt the project was

misrepresented to them at the earlier meeting and felt there were noise problems there. >> okay. >> and the middle polk -- he spoke earlier and they didn't like the idea of them changing into a bar and they don't like the extended hours but the extended hours are not in front of you anymore. they deleted that from the request but they're concerned about it becoming a full bar and the police department -- i tried to get a hold of them and haven't been successful in getting to the permit officer. he hasn't been returning my calls. >> maybe i can ask the sponsor. >> i have a limited live music permit and never goes beyond 10:00 p.m.. it's a secondary use. we have music maybe once a month. >> are there things that you

are willing to do for the concerns of the neighbor and creeping more into a night blub? >> yeah. we had a speaker and moved that to the back of the facility and no music going out the windows right now. i met with them with the middle neighborhoods and we had a glass of wine and chatted for 45 minutes. the consensus i wasn't in their area. they weren't going to contest me and i don't know why they're front and center now and i'm not even in that middle polk jurisdiction. >> okay. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. so we do have the 2005 conditions in front of us and they fairly clearly state that the business shall be operating as retail store with

wine tasting bar. i think it's really hard to support a business -- the business maybe doing well, or sort of a nice business owner, but it's hard to support that the original cu was not followed and i think it sends a bad message to other business owners that they don't necessarily have to follow the conditions of their approval, so i think it's possible for the business to condition to run under the original cu so i don't support the one in front of us today. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, if you go on the internet i don't see retail sales and it's operating that way in violation of the original conditional use and seems to me that the argument presented because it's been operating for

seven years illegally now it's okay because it's a nice place and the owner is a nice guy and everything else and i couldn't understand the argument because they didn't get caught because for some reason the city didn't catch them illegally, and so much time has passed that now it's okay to legalize the use. >> i don't quite follow that logic, and therefore i'm not in support of the conditional use, and it reminds me of the piazza market in north beach. they have a conditional use to do retail grocery store. they never turned into a retail grocery store and i think the same thing is true -- again

north beach example and covele's book store and to sell coffees and sell books and things and i think that has gone by the way side and turned into a minirestaurant now and this isn't the only example in the city where there are conditional uses issued, and if i were the proprietor i would have said -- okay retail sales isn't driving it so much. let's go back to the city and ask for a conditional use at the time, a year after he opened or six months after he opened and i don't know. it just doesn't cut it for me. >> commissioner antonini. >> maybe i can ask project sponsor a little bit about the reason why the cu is before us.

you probably realized that your use might have been out of compliance. is that how this came about? >> on my 2005 permit it does state -- it says "authorizing the establishment of retail wine store with wine tasting room defined as liquor store and bar" is what it says on the description, so probably my naivety. i am taking ownership of it. i came to the board to make the changes on my own volition. i wasn't forced. the police didn't come in and say you have a violation against you. i willing applied to do the changes when i realized i was in violation. when it's described liquor store and bar and that's my understanding what the license was for.

>> what brought you to seek the cu at this time? >> i came to the planning department to change the hours of operation and at that time speaking to the planner he informed he "well, we had look at this as well" and at that time i withdraw that request and requested to legalize my business. >> and continue the same operation and what you thought were the conditions of approval. >> that's correct. it's misleading and on the 2005 it says -- like i said defined as liquor store and bar and go through it more and talks about in november of 1986 and the zoning nearestor issued an interpretation and wine tasting room as part of a retail establishment is treated like a bar and that is number six -- >> thank you. yeah. that is informative because we have gone through some changes and that's all i need from you but thanks,

where we have recategorized the restaurant, bar, limited restaurant. these were the categories before we had many categories as worked to alcohol consumption and centered on those three but before we had a lot of different categories of types of food for service and some included alcohol sales and some didn't. maybe i could talk to someone representing the neighborhood groups. what would take for your support? would it be if we closed the is the windows here. what is the real problem? and what they have been doing for seven years and now we believe it is the permit and they're doing the right thing. ms. chapman did you want to comment --

>> [inaudible] >> we met october 1 with the police and et cetera at st. francis hospital. we used to meet regularly. we just started again. we had 60 people at least and more than the other organization and i think we qualify as a neighborhood group. so anyway there are a few things. one it's in the senior housing and when i went in there -- really i went in at 1423 polk and did you get a notice? "you can help us. we're suffering". nobody understands how they're suffering and cut to the heart. they have the heart conditions and not all from the bar and some is from the ones in the 1200 block and he said "the one downstairs" and they're not thinking about that and they don't get a response from it. the old people, and mostly

chinese speakers and -- >> ms. chapman i just need a little more specificity. you're talking about noise to a particular group who are supposedly bothered by a lot of noise and this maybe only one contributor. and the condo owners across the street and she said i won't ring the bell anymore and the permit and there is someone that filed -- not this one and the introduction and too many together and all the noise and filed 60 complaints at least to the police. >> thank you for your answers. that's enough. we are hearing complaints about multiple things. that isn't before us. >> to me the specific violation. to me and the neighbors. it's

important that you comply with the planning code and don't just go off and do something else. there is a lot of that on polk street and people have been complaining to each other. >> thank you. that's enough. my questions were in regard to what the project sponsor to can and we have to encourage things done right and discouraging things done wrong and criminal problems and sometimes we have it backwards and this guy is okay. he maybe beyond what he was granted by the conditions but he's running a good establishment and i am sure -- would you be willing to close the windows if it's an issue? >> yes, i would be and pertaining to the comments about the people that are my neighbors. i have a letter of support from mercy commercial housing that does represent the ownership interest and the tenants in the building. i am in contact with the neighbors.

i never had complaints from the neighbors. ms. chapman came in and stirred things up. >> that same building she is referencing. >> she doesn't represent them. if they had problems they would be here raising cane. you notice she doesn't reference me but the bar down the street. >> thanks. i understood that part. i wanted to hear about the windows and i will support that motion so if the windows are closed and the concerns and polk street has been a fairly loud street. it has been a active street. it might be a little more now and if you live near a freeway there is going to be noise. it's not a quiet place but we have to try

and control it as much as we can particularly the noise from inside the establishment and also i haven't heard this is an issue. i don't think their patrons are out on the street causing problems where there might be others from other establishments. >> commissioner moore. >> i am in support of commissioner wu, hillis and sugaya looking at this as a strange cu. if the law is indeed unclear and if indeed the commission at that time five years ago and only commissioner antonini would have been part of that would have been inclined to be nice . the reality is that our role is for to interpret the code in a manner that goes beyond our tenure here on this particular dais. this interpretation is why we try as best as possible to up hold the rules so this

becomes rule of law and i believe in this particular case, even if you i am happy to hear that the owner has made contributions to a well liked place in the neighborhood and positive changes in the block i think it is the situation itself and the ambiguity of what was done five years ago where we would only be creating insult to injury by creating more complicated conditions and in the event this owner, and i hope he won't and sell the bar it would remain a bar and could take all the rights and nuisances that come with the definition of bar and for that reason i cannot support this. i make a motion that it be denied. >> commissioner hillis. >> so let me just clarify. my position on this. i don't

necessarily support the cu before us. i think it's broad. that's not to say i don't support something along what commissioner sugaya said and you come to us and the business evolved and changed and a retail establishment doesn't work and something that could work of more of a wine bar but i don't think this cu gets there so my recommendation is for the project sponsor meet with the neighbors and find out what would work. if the retail room tasting doesn't. maybe what you're talking about does but doesn't seem like you're there and creeping beyond the wine bar to live music and things like that. i am not supporting a cu but this one before us i can't support it and what we have heard from the neighbors and where the establishment is. >> commissioner antonini. >> precisely. i don't need you right now. i think commissioner hillis strikes this. although

late we are hearing some opposition coming in. we are hearing some concerns coming in and questions about noise. we are hearing questions is the music necessary? and it does kind of go beyond a little bit further intensification of the cu, and i would be supportive of a continuous to allow the neighbors and project sponsor to meet maybe for a month and allow them to try to work out something, and the police department that could be acceptable that would perhaps -- i'm not saying eliminate the music. i am saying that could be a condition, closing the windows. there maybe other things so we can craft something for everybody and it's a good establishment for people visit and they're safe in the neighborhood and not a traditional bar but a wine tasting shop which there are many of and most function quite

well, and try to find conditions that could keep the noise levels lower, and i think that would -- so i make a motion to continue. >> commissioners, the protocol -- the motion on the floor is for disapproval. i don't have a second for that. but a motion to continue would take precedence over it, so if there is a motion to continue is there a second for that? there is no second for that. is there a second for motion of disapproval. there is no second for that. both motions die. >> we have to go somewhere with this. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i would like an interpretation from staff. the project sponsor read section six, and it does say it's

interpreted that a wine tasting room that is part of a retail establishment is treated as a bar and in the polk cu required to establish a bar. >> that's correct. >> if that was in the original motion i assume that at the time that this was passed that the commission's intent despite what definition of bar might be, the intent -- the language was that it be restricted to a wine tasting accessory use. >> that's correct commissioner and that same motion in the conditions of approval in exhibit a under condition number five it states that the business shall be operated as a retail wine store with wine tasting

bar, not solely as a wine bar. >> okay. and a second question in terms of commissioner -- >> excuse me. wine tasting bar. >> commissioner hillis and i think commissioner moore. under this cu if we approve it if some future owner let's say came along under this particular cu could they operate it as a pure hard liquor whatever bar? >> under the cu that exists now? or the one proposed? >> the one proposed? >> no they couldn't. it limits to beer and wine. >> i have another question. in terms of entertainment he apparently has whatever the entertainment commission's are for temporary permit. is there -- at what point -- or would it be necessary to have entertainment come before the commission as a conditional use?

>> i'm going to defer that answer to the city attorney perhaps. i don't have a copy of the code in front of me commissioner. i'm sorry. >> isn't it usually the case that entertainment comes before the commission in certain zoning districts? i don't remember the code either. >> commissioner, yes, if it's indecide considered other entertainment and in this instance this is a limited entertainment use so it's considered an accessory use to the use. >> so he wouldn't need -- he wouldn't have to add that? >> as we understand it, no. >> okay thank you. >> this is a difficult one because i think this is a reality of what can