come forward, the site will be vacant. if it was on the board of supervisors to enter this becomes occupied. from the past year-and-a-half, it has been the lamb board that has been refusing to occupy the site, not the board of supervisors. we've encouraged them to reach out to a number of different parties. the previous set of negotiating parties had come to us back in march and april, hoping to open the venue in two weeks after they met with us. i was the one that caution them to make sure they went to the process of meeting with the neighborhood and three the work, that we cannot just rushed opening. they were very ready to open the space months ago. i think that needed to be said. i do have some questions from the upgrade from license 471248. i am not as familiar with the process, so that is why i would like to have the motion

continued. i am surprised to compare $100 and change the license. there is a big difference between a restaurant license that serves food, wine, and beer, and a license but serves liquor, and it is really a bar license. from my understanding, we have to take considerations of number of 47 and 48 that are in san francisco to make sure there is not a saturation of either one or the other and that of a proper mix. i do have a number of questions. hopefully we will be able to answer that. i do expect a lot more community are reach before we're able to do the transfer. that would be my motion. >> the next meeting of september 10 at 10:00. a motion to continue to september 10? >supervisor kim: i was for a

demotion to continue it. i know the chair is not here today. supervisor wiener: my recommendation would be to make it september 10 so it is on calendar. i think that would provide about five weeks, and the time in which a lot of information can be gathered. supervisor kim: i am happy to make that motion, monday, september 10. supervisor olague: i would rather there are plenty of argus that have been made to deny the license transfer. if folks are more inclined to continue it, that is fine. i think there has been plenty of time to do outreach and do the things that supervisor kim mentioned. i am ready to deny the transfer

today, but i will respect whatever the rest of the committee chooses to do. i think a lot of the issues that came up in the purview of the license, i think the eagle has been a community space for people of the community, and i think it goes outside of everyone is welcome. i think that people still leave places where they can be who they are did experience -- meet people who have similar interests, who share a similar life style. i think most people -- i talked to a lot of people who are straight and part of other orientation to feel very welcome at the eagles, but i think what we're talking about is preservation of a culture within san francisco that a lot of people are feeling that we're

losing our culture here in san francisco. there is even a lot of gender vacatification in the clear use. this is the issue that goes into other areas. and know there have been conversation started about the preservation or creation of leather districts based of cultural significance, filipino areas in the south of market based on that also. in japan town we have struggled for how to do that legislatively. i think that as part of a bigger discussion of how you keep -- there is a part of some of us that feel like we're losing some of the culture in san francisco. i think the eagle has always been symbolic.

every time i looked up at the condos, it is kind of pathetic here again so i am getting myself, and that is fine. so i think it is the bigger conversation that is really not appropriate in the transfer of a liquor license, but i think that is why people are so passionate about this issue, because people do not want to lose another culture abase. base. we have lost a lot in the past wttwo decades. people want to continue it, that the school. i'm happy to, but i do not support continuing it, i would rather deny licensing. supervisor campos: thank you.

i want to thank the members of the public that have come out to. let me just make it clear that for me, this issue is not about questioning the commitment, sincerity and integrity of the people that are moving forward with this license an application. i have no reason to doubt the comments and commitments that have been made and the sincerity with which it comes. and it is not about the sexual orientation of whoever takes over the establishment is, but really about whether or not whoever takes over is going to work with the community as hole in a way that meets the objectives of with the codes that are relevant here lay out. at the end of the day we have to decide whether or not the

transfer will serve the public convenience or necessity. the way in which this matter has come before us, i think it is very incomplete. the resolution is written from the context of transferring a type 48 license. i know we had representations that there was an upgrade at some point. i do not know legally went to the -- when the upgrade becomes effective, and the fact that we do not have someone from abc to tell us if the upgrade happens when the request is made, when the money is paid, or does it happen when this body at the board of supervisor box? i do not note legally what the right description would be, so i do not know that we delete an upgrade has been made from a 47 license. i also think once you have a

transfer implicated, that there were other policy issues that have to come into play. is it in the convenience and necessity of the city to allow 47 licenses that are very limited in scope in terms of what it is used for to be transferred into a 48 license, and what is the code for local law and business and professions to other state law? that is applicable here. what did they say about the transfer? i think there are a number of questions. i think because of the questions, i think there is another on record for this body to conclude that the applicant has not met the legal threshold of demonstrating that it is public convenience and necessity to approve this. i do think as a lawyer based on this record alone there is every

reason and a free basis to deny the license. that said, i think that we have to get a lot of difference to supervisor kim and i want to acknowledge her and her staff, because they have truly gone out of their way to make sure this is handled in a manner that is fair to everyone involved, and as a district supervisor, i am amazed and shocked that the supervisor's office has not really been approached a and engaged in the way that you would expect someone to do that. quite frankly, it does not bode well in terms of what it says about the commission -- about the commitment to the players of the future of the establishment. to the extent that we're having

people here who have themselves acknowledged the process of our reatreach has been inadequate, t at the same time to say we want you to approve the license today without recognizing there might be of benefit to continuing this matter, the that they're willing to say we have not done everything we need to do and acknowledge that, but we still want you to act today, that also does not bode well for the commitment, because even if we choose to have the license transfer, i did not know, that you are not going to even acknowledge the need to take the time to engage the community before action is taken here is really troubling to me. i also have to say that i personally, given the questions that have been raised about the way in which the owner of the property has engaged with the

community, i personally think it is important for me to hear directly from the owner, and i believe it is appropriate for this body to say if you want the board of supervisors to approve anything, it is appropriate that we're betting the proposal, but we hear directly from you. that if he really wants the proposal, he will come and speak to us directly. i am not prepared to move on anything until and unless that happens. i was shocked by many things in this proceeding. i do not know the other parties negotiating with this party, but i would certainly be interested to see the same person working with me is now representing the people that eventually got the deal. i do not really see that happen

very often. there are very clear guidelines in terms of how you can interact with different parties. i imagine the parties are looking into the legal questions raised by that. in any event, i think there is basis for denial, but i also think there is a benefit to that, and if we do go down the road of continuing, that there is truly an effort and willingness to negotiate and to deal with the community in good faith. i think that is all the community is asking for. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. i of a few comments. i think one of the issues i have worked on very extensively is preserving and improving san francisco; righ's night life.

i worked very hard on this. i was part of the study that showed what it contributes to the economy. i have been very vocal and raising questions about the western some of plan, because i think it will undermine night life around 11th street, so i am absolutely passant about having great night life. as a gay guy who has been going to get barsay bars, before i wa, i am completely passionate. i also -- all of these different bidders and suitors who wanted to take this over and keep it as the eagle, i stepped up and tried to help each and every one of them. i spoke with them on the phone and try to help them.

i do not know why it did not work. i tried to help mike lee on, as did supervisor kim. it did not work. i did it. i have worked very hard to keep it open, and to give it to stay as the eagle, and sometimes we want to view ourselves so powerful that we can make things happen, and this is one of the frustrating experiences where you try and think you have influence, but you end up having a lot less influence that you actually have. with that said, we are in the situation we're in, and i will support the motion to continue the motion to september 10. we will give the new owners time to do our reach for the information that has to be gathered and come back to the committee so the committee and board can make an intelligent decision about the liquor

license transfer. i want to know that as the new owners, and i said this last week, i stepped and a little bit of a cow pie here, because there is a history, and people have been very angry at property owners. they actually took their liquor license out of the premises with them. i think they have not done anything wrong. there were timing issues, and there have been comments today that i think have been unfair. community are reached is extremely important. i am confident and request that that start happening immediately. we will work closely with them on this. i also want to note that even though there have been a number of comments today about gay vs straight ownership, and believe

me, i am a huge bolivaeliever i owners of bars and nightclubs, but that is not before the board, and nor would it be legal before it to be before the board. we can cannot -- we cannot condition a liquor license based on whether their oy're gay or straight. there are very defined standards around transferring a liquor license. i think there has been some unrealistic expectations in the community about what is within the parameters of the board's determination about that. i just want to make sure this license is held to the same standard, and that includes community outreach. i think it makes sense to have more time to do that. it should be the same standards. with that, i will support

supervisor kim's motion. supervisor olague: i will support supervisor kim's motion also. september 10 is right after the august break. i am not convinced there will be a lot of time for the things that need to happen. supervisor kim: i am happy to amend the motion to september 24. supervisor wiener: without objection, the man is amended. supervisor kim: i think the process is incredibly important, especially in a neighborhood that is already saturated with a group license, and there are a number of things i will consider as we move forward as the type

of businesses that are intended to be as part of the neighborhood. just for a little bit of context, and any census tract it is suggested there are only seven alcohol-serving but years, but there are 33 here. i think there are a number of questions that i will have certainly in terms of what the clientele and security plan and the type of business you plan to move forward, just so you also know in terms of the area, this part of the city has more than doubled the crime that is considered a high crime area. it is considered high crime with 215 crimes. this area has 559 reported crimes. i think i will really need to see a strong security plan, and also, an important part of safety is absolutely community outreach. you want to know the neighbors that you will be residing with. want to have good relationships with them. that is part of preventing

crimes as well, knowing the community will be a part of, so i think that is absolutely essential. i want to confer with supervisor wiener. i have a number of concerns regarding the transfer it solves. we're more than happy to provide a list of folks that you can do support to to get feedback from, and i am looking forward to what may become before us in september. super wiener: thank you. one quick follow-up on the saturation issue, which is always an important concern. it is my understanding the people always had a 48 liquor license for decades and decades, and as we have continued dialogue, i just want to picture people understand that the saturation argument. it is challenging to say that it

is saturated show we should not have a 48 for these owners, but we should bring the ankle facea. i want to make sure we have that in mind. supervisor kim: i am not saying i would not approve because of saturation. i represent a district that is saturated. i do not think that is a saturation itself, but when there is liquor-serving businesses in the neighborhood, there is a higher level of standard, and you want to ensure that there has been a lot of outreach and security plan. supervisor campos: i totally agree with you, and i completely agree with what supervisor kim as saying. i think saturation is a consideration, in the context of looking at how the proposed

operators are interacting and connected with the community is a key consideration in terms of looking at the overall public welfare. unless they are committed to actually working with the neighborhood and community, i think that we could very well decide it is not in the public welfare to provide a licence in one instance. i do think, connected the players are to the committee is an important consideration, and i am sure the something that all of us will look into. supervisor elsbernd: seeing the weather and on the list, with a motion by supervisor kim to continue this matter to september 24, 2012 meeting of this committee. can we take that without objection? that will be the order. any other items on the agenda? we are turned. -- are adjourned.

>> everyone deserves a bank account. in san francisco, anyone can have a bank account, things to an innovative program, bank on s.f. >> everyone is welcome, even if you are not a citizen or have bad credit to qualify for a bank account is simple. just live or work in san francisco and have a form of id. >> we started bank on s.f. six years ago to reach out to folks in the city who do not have a bank account. we wanted to make sure they know they have options which should be more low-cost, more successful to them and using chat catchers.

>> check cashing stores can be found all over the city, but they're convenient locations come with a hidden price. >> these are big. >> iremember coming in to collect -- charged a fee to collect a monogram. >> people who use check catchers, particularly those who use them to cash their paychecks all year long, they can pay hundreds, even a thousand dollars a year just in fees to get access to their pay. >> i do not have that kind of money. >> i would not have to pay it if i had a bank account. >> bank accounts are essential. they keep your money saved and that helps save for the future. most banks require information that may limit its pool of qualified applicants. encouraging to turn to costly and unsafe check captures.

>> i do not feel safe carrying the money order that i get home. >> without a bank account, you are more vulnerable to loss, robbery, or theft. thankfully, the program was designed to meet the needs of every kind, so qualifying for a bank account is no longer a problem. even if you have had problems with an account in the past, have never had an account, or are not a u.s. citizen, bank on s.f. makes it easy for you to have an account. >> many people do not have a bank account because they might be in the check system, which means they had an account in the past but had problems managing it and it was closed. that gives them no option but to go to a cash -- check catcher for up to seven years. you want to give these people second chance. >> to find account best for you, follow these three easy steps. first, find a participating bank

or credit union. call 211 or call one of our partner banks or credit unions and ask about the bank on s.f. account. both -- most bridges will have a sign in their window. second, ask about opening an account through bank on s.f.. a financial partner will guide you through this process and connect you with the account that is best for you. third, bring some form of identification. the california id, for an id, or your passport is fine. >> now you have open your account. simple? that is exactly why it was designed. you can access your account online, set up direct deposit, and make transfers. it is a real bank account. >> it is very exciting. we see people opening up second accounts. a lot of these people never had account before. people who have problems with bank accounts, people without

two ids, no minimum deposit. we are excited to have these people. >> it has been a great partnership with bank on s.f. because we are able to offer checking, savings, minimarkets, certificates, and loans to people who might not be about to get accounts anywhere else. even if you have had a previous account at another financial institutions, we can still open an account for you, so you do not need to go to a check cashing place, which may turn to two percent of your monthly income. >> you can enroll in free educational services online. just as it -- visit sfsmartmoney.org. with services like financial education classes and one-on-one meetings with advisers, asset smart money network makes it easy for you to learn all you need to know about managing, saving, investing, and

protecting your money. the network offers access to hundreds of financial aid programs. to help their eruptions, fill out the quick questionnaire, and you will be steered to the program you are looking for. >> who want to make sure everyone has the chance to manage their money successfully, keep their money safe, and avoid getting ripped off. >> it sounds very good. i think people should try that one. >> to find out more, visit sfsmartmoney.org or call 211 and ask about the bank on s.f. program. >> now you can have a bank account. open one today.

>> good afternoon. this is a joint meeting between the planning commission and the stohr preservation commission for july 19, 2012. i would like to remind everyone to silence or so phones and any other electronic devices that may sound off. moore? here. sugaya? borden? cindy wu? i have a quorum of the planning commission, chase? haas/ ? martinez? we have a quorum