could certainly -- commissioner miguel: i understand that. i just was not certain whether i missed anything. can the commission imposed a condition of no liquor license? is that legally in available -- is that legally available? >> i do not >> i do not know a reason why you would not. >> it is my understanding that the liquor license decision process is completely within the control of the state process that is established and that the abc has complete control over that period the commission can impose commissions related to land use issues such as hours of operation. but the application for the liquor licence is separate and the city entities that represent

the city and give recommendations to the abc as to conditions on any liquor license or whether a liquor licence should be granted, so the commission could recommend to the board of supervisors that it recommend to the abc not to grant a liquor license in this particular situation. that is my understanding. >> if i could follow that up for a second. does that mean that when this commission has approved a story going in that has stated it is not going to have a liquor license, it could, six months later, without anything to do with the city, apply for one and obtain one? >> i think it is the zoning -- i am not sure about that. if the commission would like to take a recess, i can find out

the answer to that question to. president olague: >> i do not see her back but maybe you can go for with some more comments. commissioner moore: i wanted to comment generically on the issue of a liquor license. we have had quite a few projects where the issue of overconcentration of liquor licenses was discussed with us even with people who had a full- service restaurant asking to add that to make the place more rounded out. the police department tells us

of some of the observations that have had in response to an overconcentration. people from the community have come by in public comment or related to other projects that are in front of us to describe the noise and whatever impacts. i want to remind us of that. that has been an issue for us to. i am very, very glad to see trader joe's coming back. we have spent a lot of time on the sutter st. van ness corridor product -- project with trader joe's in that particular case, they did not have any parking. there is a good feeling about the store. i am perfectly comfortable with trader joe's moving into the

location and getting a liquor license. that seems to be very much in tune with the grocery store that had won. trader joe's is a little bit different. that is a no-brainer. packaging two formula retail projects into one, i would agree with commissioner miguel. i would have expected that they would have approached us not as a package deal, but it would have understood the sensitivity of adding formula and retail of this scale, it is a question. starbucks, takes -- starbucks takes a fraction of the space of

what is in front of us. i am not very comfortable seeing this all packaged in one. i would share the concern about the potential of an additional liquor license being allocated to this location. if you can buy it at one, why do you have to compete among each other? but that does not make any sense at all. i might have missed read -- my understanding was trader joe's was going to be operating at the normal opening hours of 10:00 and the closing time for what i did read, the cbs -- the cvs was trying to be 24 hours. that does not work at all. i have lived in the adjoining

neighborhood for years. they share with each other the night service -- the idea of saying that the 24-hour open pharmacy would add something -- the other pharmacies are too close and communicate to the public when they are open at night. i do not think we need an additional one. the corner has always been problematic. it is going to be even more problematic given that the parking lot, which is more suburban than for men has a huge parking lot in front of it. there have been questionable activities for the last 30 years i have lived in the never. i do not want to describe any because that would be unfair. this has been a difficult location for a 24-hour store for many years. while it will make physical

improvements, the habits of people with a location like that are hard to change. i do not think that a 24-hour store like cvs in that location adds anything to the neighborhood. president olague: i was noticing that a representative from the office of supervisor chu was here. do you have anything to add to the discussion? >> and afternoon. -- good afternoon. very briefly, i am interested in seeing your city attorney coming back. president chiu supports seeing ape project go in at this site. he knows they have a reputation for pulling off these products quickly. there was discussion about whether it would be a multi-year

project. we are pleased that the down time of this site is likely to be quite low comparatively under this proposal. also, president chiu is supportive of trader joe's. he has heard concerns from the neighborhood about cvs, the concentration of drug stores in the neighborhood, but also realizing from the competition arguments expressed today in the staff report, i do think that the issue of the liquor license is incredibly corny. president chiu has heard from their record groups who support the project and the buying of the licenses and the strong concerns you have heard from some of the neighborhood groups today. our understanding going into today's hearing -- i do not want to preempt the city attorney, but the commission does not have the condition to make it related

to the liquor license. we see going for as the liquor licence being a significant issue we need to deal with going forward. that being said, if you received a different advise, it is up to you how you deal with that issue. the broader issue of liquor licenses at pharmacies or drug stores is one that we need to work on. clearly, you start to see the case-by-case issues and realize there is a systematic issue we need to address. the commission has made similar policies that they have addressed regarding to that or other products. that is a big picture issue. we do not want to see the site on occupied because of that broader issue. there is a needle to thread there. i hope i covered some of the issues before you. president olague: thank you.

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: ok. thank you. i agree. i might be more concerned about the comments regarding whether or not we will have jurisdiction over the liquor situation or not. if this were a freestanding, separate, new liquor outlet somewhere a distance away from another one, there might be some concerns. but a few steps away from another establishment that is going to be open the same hours and if someone really wants to buy beer and wine, they will simply, if they do not buy it at cvs, they will walk a couple of steps and buy it at trader joe's. i do not see how this will impact a number of people on the street creating disturbances. it is not an issue for me whether or not we have jurisdiction. there were some comments made by commissioner moore about

packaging. i think commissioner miguel also commented on that. we approved this on california street, if i am not mistaken. it did come up separately. it ended up the same kind of thing even though it underwent a different kind of hearings. it was a very similar situation. the reason was for the same reasons it is being presented today, they did not feel they could occupy the entire space and they were partnering with cvs to occupy the other half. we also talk a little bit about neighborhood input. i am looking at petitions from -- six pages worth of signatures, most are people in support of this project, most of whom have addresses that are within walking distance. while we appreciate people

coming from the neighborhood expressing their opinions, they are not the exclusive neighborhood. there are some of the members of the neighborhood of. a lot of the people and the neighborhood were not able to come to the series but have expressed their opinions through a petition that was given to us in support of this particular project. i think that has validity to. although the name kala -- i think the last of the brothers died 15 years ago and they sold it a long time ago. the reason they say that is because i knew them well and the products they had before, which i think is far superior to what is there now. i hope that trader joe's and this combination is good. i do not know if commissioner fong is ok with adding additional hours, but i think there is a friendly amendment.

we set conditions of operation from 8:00-10:00 for both establishments, if that is within our ability to do so. is that an accepted amendment? >> am i allowed to hear comments from the project sponsor? >> it is more of an impact for cvs. we would respectfully request that you do not restrict hours. what would be advantageous to everyone is to restrict the hours of of all sales. 8:00-10:00 is fine. commissioner antonini: thank you very much. that would be my amendment. 90% of this discussion has been about the alcohol. if we restrict those sales from 8:00?

10:00, that would be fine. >> i do not know if that impacts anything because of the city attorney's opinion. president olague: commissioner miguel, you have anything to add? >> i am waiting for the city attorney's comments. if we restrict liquor sales but not in the store opening, we recently had a restaurant come to us who had wine and beer and wanted to sell liquor as well. they came to us for that permission, to change their conditions of approval. i do not know where we are on this. commissioner sugaya: we have no way of monitoring that.

not that cbs -- not that cvs is a dishonest company, but anyway -- there was a statement made that there was a cooperative gesture between trader joe's and cvs. could i learn a little bit more about what that cooperative venture is? bringing these two things together at the same time? or is it just put together by the two groups and you brought it in? >> we have been marketing this property since 2006. to comment on the grocery stores, we actually marketed this property and had 13 serious targets. commissioner sugaya: i just want to know -- is there an agreement between the organizations? >> there is an agreement to finance the cost of renovating the shell.

all of the upgrades. there are paying for that portion of the building. commissioner sugaya: there is no agreement on sales or any of the products? >> no. president olague: i see the city attorney has returned. >> i apologize for the delay. the situation is that there is a bit of a difference between the actual law and the practice of the abc. that is where we are having a little disagreement. basically, where all is conditionally permitted by the city, in districts where it is conditionally permitted, the abc has practiced strong indifference to the conditions opposed as a condition of approval. that has been the practice. in this case, the of all use, as i understand it, is principally

permitted. it is not clear whether, if you put a condition on just the alcohol in this particular case, not what the conditional use is required for, whether the abc would continue that practice of deference. what we would recommend in this instance, and we can research it further, perhaps staff can talk with abc or the city attorney can look more into this, would be a motion of intent on this issue and we can come back to the condition with a more definite answer. within our experience, it is an issue where the ball all -- where the alcohol is presently permitted and the issue has not

come off. what commissioner miguel was referring to was where they were not conditionally permitted. that is below wall where abc has given -- has differed from the city on these issues. i apologize for the delay. thank you for your patience. >> just before you came back, there was a question raised at the commission as to whether we could restrict the hours of sales for liquor by condition. what -- would the same answer applies to that? >> yes, the same answer would apply if it was an area where the of all use was conditionally rated -- where the alcohol use was principally permitted. i would look more into that issue before you impose a condition.

>> pardon my brow beating or beating a dead horse or however you want to put it -- in effect, what you're saying is because of the zoning in this area, it is a non-issue for this commission. to try and formulate a condition of approval is beyond our legal ability. >> that is the issue of like to look into further. there is no question that the commission could strongly urge the board to request the abc to limit the hours of operation or the permit. there is no question you can do that. whether you can put an end -- a legally enforceable condition on this particular conditional use permit, i cannot answer to that. vice president miguel: thank you very much. i would like to offer an amendment to the motion that we

include request to the board that they limit -- that they do not allow liquor license and if they do, that day severely restrict the hours. it is just going to have to be a recommendation. president olague: and that would have to be included in the motion, right? vice president miguel: that is an amendment to the motion. is there a second? >> could you rephrase that for everybody's benefit? >> my understanding is that

commissioner miguel is asking for an amendment to the motion that this commission urges the board to not allow the liquor license. at cvs. if they do, that they strongly restrict it. the hours of sales. and basically, the modification that you allowed earlier per the city attorney's recommendation is not allowed. >> we have no control over that period >> i would accept that amendment. president olague: there is a modification to the motion on the floor. commissioner sugaya: the other way to do is go back to eliminating the hours for the

entire store. but i do not think this commission will do that. in any case, i object to it because i do not think we have control over it. there are saying there is only going to be 50 linear feet on one side and 20 on the other side when there are 5000 lineal feet there now. we have no control over the of all that will go in there once they start the operation. if they are successful, you cannot tell me they're going to limit it to what is there now. i am not saying you are dishonest or anything, but if it is market driven, and we have no control, of course they're going to increase the amount of liquor there. i buy liquor at walgreen's once and awhile -- once in a while

and the square feet has increased a lot. there was one license but now we are going to have two in an area where there was one and we have denied liquor permits within a block of this site previously. it just does not seem like a good planning move. i do not think it is necessary or desirable. commissioner antonini: i am going to oppose this motion. while i want to see this approved, it is important to approve it, i would like to go back to the motion i made earlier where i made an amendment which would ask intend to approve limiting the hours of all sales -- of alcohol sales. if the motion were to fail, i

would make another motion to do that. if not, then whatever is approved and will be approved. commissioner borden: one of the things we talked about, and i do not want to belabor the point, but this concept of liquor license -- of their liquor license being a replacement for a bad liquor license. i do not know if we want to make a statement about that in our motion. >> i would not entertain that. president olague: basically, the motion that we have on the floor is just that we are encouraging the supervisors to continue to -- can you clarify it for me? >> to make it clear, the board of supervisors ultimately

advises the abc about what conditions we can request to put on a particular licence. your recommendation would be that the board can make that request when the application comes before the board. president olague: because it is not within our purview to limit the at -- to limit the hours of all sales -- of alcohol sales because it is a principally permitted use. it is not a conditional use. it prevents us from weighing in. >> that is as far as i can advise you this evening. obviously, i will get to this further. but i have not had this issue come up in the past. >> as i understand it, he recommend they don't make it a condition of approval at this point but you urge the board to

urge the abc not to grant the license. president olague: yes. sort of a soft -- ms. herbert i am looking at you and wondering what you are thinking. >> you are urging the board to request that the abc not grant the liquor license to cvs. president olague: correct. that is all we are doing. >> that was a part of the motion. if they do this, they limit the hours of the sales. >> there is one action you are saying on the c.u. and one action you are saying where there would be correspondence to the boan a separate process which was the application for the liquor license and. president olague: right. i wanted to be clear that what

we are proving today is the project as it is currently proposed. to request anything more would be outside of our for you, basically. that is it. >> do you want to make a motion of intent and we can come back? president olague: i am good with it. commissioner sugaya, you have something to add? commissioner sugaya: i am going to vote against the motion because these things are bundled together and we cannot seem to separate the two. i do not have a problem with one. that is my frustration at this point. president olague: i do not want to continue to see a vacant space there for. -- there . we have heard from enough of the neighborhood and my sense is that people who want to see

trader joe's there -- that is the sense i get. the cbs issue -- the cvs issue with the liquor license i do not support either. i agree with mr. nolte and i do not support that addition. part of this, again, really speaks to the necessity to have the conversation that we have often talked about here. the one that is the definition of these types of -- the definition, really. they sell some many different kinds of products and they come to us under the guise of pharmacy or this sort of thing but they are selling grocery items, liquor, all of the rest of it.

i know that supervisor mar started a conversation this past week over formula of retail -- formula retail. it is long overdue for us to have that discussion. i think will calendar id for january. the next available calendar. we will discuss it later and work on it. it is a conversation that we need to have. also, i agree with commissioner miguel that it is unfortunate that this did not come back to us as a mixed use project. it would have been nice to have that conversation about work force housing or something that we might have seen there. but under the circumstances, i regret having to support the motion on some level because i do have issues with cvs