comment of the public comment on the items for today on my count, there are two items in district 3 which are items 1 and 2 and both of them involve situations that the community and neighborhood groups i think are quite supportive of. i do know that a fourth item is in district 10 so there are two items in district 6 and i appreciate the comment that was made. i do want to mention in the lower poke neighborhood, we have had a conversation about whether there ought to be some cap on future liquor licenses as i discussed with the lower poke neighbors just last week or two weeks ago, my office is preparing legislation to consider an alcoholic reduced risk, i look to bringing that legislation forward hopefully in the next few weeks, with regards to item number 1, this involves a site that my office and the neighborhoods that are represented here have been working on for a number of years. at this site at california and

hyde, there existed a cal food supermarket, they decided to pull out of that area and all of us were troubled at the idea that that very dense set of neighborhoods, really the intersection of middle poke, lower poke and nob hill would be left without a supermarket, so it would be to bring a trader joe's along with a cvs along to that site, it has unanimous support of what we want to see happen there, now cvs wanted a liquor license nr the neighborhood and this is a part of my district that has a significant number of liquor licenses and i want to thank the neighborhood associations that worked with my office as well as the project spore -- sponsor to come up with a good solution, and that is as follows, cvs would like to have a liquor license but what the neighborhood and what my office

has asked them to do is to purchase several liquor licenses, particularly at 2 undesirable alcohol retailers to take two licenses off the street in return for the liquor license that they will have, cvs has purchased the licenses from jane d. liquors at 1042 polk street in the lower poke neighborhood as well as spencer and dan ems at 1541 polk street which is in the lower poke association, these are problem vendors for which there have been numerous neighborhood complaints over the years and these are licenses that will not be used by cva at the property or sold to another liquor retailer in the neighborhood, these will be results in the elimination of two beer and wine liquor sellers in the neighborhood that have been identified as problem retailers in the past, i want to thank lower poke neighbors had submitted a letter for this particular

outcome, i want to note for our colleagues that the conditions that are proposed for this particular liquor license were heavily negotiated between my office and the neighborhood association, because of that, i ask my klaoeks -- colleagues to vote for this. >> the applicant has filed an application with abc seeking a type 20 for 1059 hyde street, for the purposes of this hearing, the abc seeks a determination pr the board of supervisors as the approval or denial of this liquor license, no police calls for service from july 2010 to july 2012, no record of police reports from august 2011 to august 2012, the application premises located in a high crime area, the applicant premises located in an undue concentration area, there's one valid letter of protest -- to abc and there's

no letter of support to abc, there's no opposition of central station and staff recommends approval with the following, number one, the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. daily, no more than 5% of the square footage will be displayed for alcoholic beverage, no malt beverage should be shoeld with the alcoholic content greater than .57% by volume, the single sale or malt beverages of 16 ounce, 22 ounce, 32 ounce or 40 ounce or similar size containers is prohibited, no beer or wine beverage, should be sold in quantities of less than a manufacturer prepackaged quantities of four or more, number 6, no wine should be sold with an alcohol content greater than 15% except for

wine that has been aged for two years or more and maintained in a cork bottle, loitering is prohibited on any of the sidewalks and property adjacent to the license premises under control of the licensee, the petitioner should have equipment, the surveillance shall record and be operation to all times to the premises be kept open to the public, that recording should be kept for a minimum of 7 days and shall be made available to law enforcement on demand. >> would the project sponsor like to say anything? >> good morning, supervisors, president, holly, [inaudible] representative from cvs to answer any of your question, whether it's specifically about the pronlt or the history of leading up through the neighborhood outreach. i did want to make one point of

correction, on the agenda, it identifies the type 21 license, we are in fact [inaudible] a type 20 beer and wine only. if you have any questions, i'm here. >> does staff present an issue? >> while the city attorney is reviewing that, let's go to public comment. any people in the public that wish to comment on this, please line up. >> good morning, supervisors, i'd like the overhead, please. overhead, please. >> it will come, if you could start speaking, go for it. >> yes. david chu made a point that the

licenses were bought by cvs, here is one of the locations on poke not been bought off the abc website, it would have been updated, and also as you can see, it also states that the license has been surrendered so therefore i ask now legally the question of lower poke in their packet, the recommendation in january and in march, what i just showed you has been surrendered and it has one year in which it is to be purchased, it has not been purchased. part number 2, this is the second issue of the license being claimed to be bought which is not part of the conditions by abc, again, it does not show it's been bought by cvs. so, now i question who is still

in the property -- or owner involved, cvs does not own it, misrepresentation here. i was at the meeting for january for lower poke and the community, we voted, but again when we went to the planning commission, the planning commission was concerned about this, this site and there was a big discussion about that in the planning commission when cvs and the other entity, trader joe's, wanted to have two liquor licenses, so i think there's been a big discussion and no outreach to all the neighborhood. >> good morning, supervisors. this item reminds me about the big discussion here at city

hall regarding walgreens and their selling of tobacco, now, i say why give walgreens trouble for selling tobacco and let their competitors, cvs sell liquor? now, nobody's going to figure out which one causes more harm, liquor or tobacco, but i think if the city's going to be fair and consistent and not show any signs of special influence, we should be consistent and say if we're going to give walgreens a hassle about has -- tobacco, then we should treat cvs the same about the liquor. it's kind of like saying, you know, that's the way it is, but then, i'm a firm believer of seeing the evidence just like a judge does.

thank you. >> mr. nulty? >> i'd like to pass this in. my name is michael nulty, i'm the executive director for better alliance 6, we'd like to request a continuance on this item. we would like to acquire proof purchase of 1021 polk street off-sale liquor license as well as the 1541 polk street type 21 liquor license, we'd like to see that it's been transferred, then the community will be satisfied that cvs is acting in good faith, we're not clear on the relationship between the gar field beach cvsllc which is the liquor license owner that's been talked about and then we

are also not clear about how a surrendered license purchase helps the polk street corridor when the license is no longer actively a nuisance in that area, so we have a lot of concern about this and then again as of today on the abc website, i want to reiterate that -- the overhead, at 1042 polk street, this is off the abc website, the license is still active with the previous owner and as well as the license at 1541 polk street, the license has been surrendered, so it's not been purchased by anybody, so this is as of today, because the inquiry was done on the 21st,

that doesn't mean that they update until tonight, the 22nd. >> any other members of the public wish to comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> you can go and consider this item. >> thank you. supervisor olague. >> i'm inclined not to support this but for the sake of the discussion and because the supervisor has worked with the neighbors for a long time, i remember when this first came to the planning commission and many of the lower poke neighbors had expressed a deep concern about allowing this liquor license, but given that they're going to be obtaining those licenses from two problematic locations, then i'm happy to get this through this committee, but i may not be supporting it at the board because i don't see -- i believe that it's time that we start to scrutinize the number of products that some of these

pharmacies are selling and with trader joe's sitting next door, they have an extensive liquor selection, i don't see the necessity of adding a beer and wine license to a pharmacy, so again, out of respect for the lower poke neighborhood association, the work they've done with the supervisor's office and i'm trying to get it through to the board but i think this is an issue that i would like to -- i think it's time that we start to review and i will be happy to work with supervisor chu, engage in some of these discussions with supervisor mar, we're looking at creating healthier retail spaces and i think that this is very much should be part of that discussion. so, i'm willing to move it to the next level. >> president chu? >> thank you, supervisor olague and let me say a couple of things on that point. this was not an ideal situation for the neighborhood which is

why we spent many month toser negotiate and require cvs to take a number of liquor licenses out of problematic areas and i have stated to the neighborhood that i did not anticipate supporting another situation like this, at least within the polk street neighborhoods and i would be open to considering legislation if that is a direction that we want to go through as a city to state that for these types of entities, alcohol may not be appropriate, that is a conversation that would be for the future, but supervisor olague, i'm more than happy to work with your office on that, doi want to ask the project sponsor if you can address the concerns that have been addressed for alliance for better district 6, you have selected the purchases of the license that were significant issue and negotiation with the neighborhood and if you could tell us that specific situation, i think that would help clarify the concerns raised. >> holly from [inaudible] on behalf of cvs, the reason that

you see the licenses as surrendered is they're in escrow until we have a location to transfer to or have the approval of the pcn and then can cancel and eliminate those licenses to be sold to anyone else, cvs does not operate the location that the existing licenses are tied to, they cannot physically own those licenses until they're moved, and that's the likely pathway of the spencer and daniel's license, the jane d. liquor, we're looking for an opportunity to move it to another location, we would do the same process which is to surrender it for 90 days, they can't bring in a new license, we've been thoughtful in how we've been purchasing the licenses from prohibiting the neighborhood to purchasing another license. >> and are those documents that

you are able to share with folks. what can you share with the neighborhood? >> i will show you that they are under a contract. >> and i would love to share that with neighborhood folks if folks would like to say that, colleagues, one thing i would like the point out that the san francisco police department, they did do their due diligence on this, the neighborhood did negotiate a number of voluntary conditions beyond what the san francisco police department had requested and what i would like to ask that the draft voluntary conditions that were laid out in the project sponsor agreement that were negotiated with the neighborhoods which would probably add five or six conditions on what the police department had asked, that those be adopted by this commission. >> yes. >> and one of those conditions states that these licenses, the additional licenses will be not

only purchased by transferred out of the area so there's not a concern of that, they'll still somehow be moved in and around the area. >> okay, seeing no other comment, supervisor olague, would you prefer to send this item forward without a recommendation? >> we'll send it forward with a recommendation. >> mr. clerk, that would be the order. >> can you please read item number 2. >> item number 2, hearing to consider the transfer of a type 48 on-sale general public premises liquor license from 247 pow well street to 165 jefferson street. >> again, president chu, in your district. >> thank you, mr. chair, colleagues, this is a liquor license that involves an establishment that i think many in san francisco know quite well which is the gold dust lounge, it has had a wonderful history in union square and fortunately the land lard to the gold dust lounge did not see fit to continue renting to

that establishment and instead is moving a national clothing boutique into that space which from my perspective and i think the per spective of many, i think supervisor olague thought was a real shame given the historic nature of the gold dust lounge, i was heartened and i think many were heartened to learn that the gold dust lounge hopes and plans to be moving to the fisherman's wharf area, this is a liquor license related to that, i know there was significant outreach to the fisherman's wharf area to make sure folks would understand the kind of neighborhood business that the gold dust lounge has been and with that, this is a liquor license transfer that i support and i just want to mention because the comment had been made before, this would be moving this specific liquor license really away from the district 6 area which is where i know some of the activists here have had issues with and moving it along the waterfront

on to jefferson street. er >> thank you, president chu, does the project sponsor have any comments before we move to public comment? please come forward if you do. >> good morning, supervisors, [inaudible] i think president chu has covered all the points except for one item that i want to cover as part of our due diligence for outreach, and this is nick bovis, the proprietor of the business, we did have an ongoing dialog with the upstairs commercial tenants would was complaining about the possibility of a noise leak from the entertainment from the gold dust lounge, the gold dust lounge at fisherman's bhar f has not commenced build o*ut yet and when it does, there are plans in place to do

significant soundproofing and as you well known, an entertainment permit cannot be fully granted until the inspection is given from the city, so all the safeguards in place, we've done significant outreach to this particular tenant upstairs and another tenant e-mailed me back and said everything was fine as far as he was concerned so that's about it, this is nick bovis. >> i wanted to thank everybody for your support and help and the cause from [inaudible] downtown to try to stop all the retailers in making san francisco the same, we appreciate all the help and support and i know everybody tried really hard and the next best thing is to move it and we appreciate your support. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, any members of the public wish to comment on the item? seeing none, public --

>> could you pass these in, one for the clerk. my name is michael nulty and i'm the executive director of alliance for better district 6, we are a coalition member of the tenant's association coalition which has written a letter of support for the type 48 liquor license at 165 jefferson, the gold dust lounge at fisherman's wharf, we believe the tenant's association coalition supports gold dust lounge at fisherman's what f, requests for resolution for public convenience or necessity. the representatives that had come to one of our meetings and told them about their proposed plan and so we are quite aware of that, we're also very

sympathetic about the [inaudible] of specific businesses, there aren't that many left, they're mostly large retailers and we like to see small businesses thrive in our downtown area to clean the business corridors, and so it's very important to see that businesses stay, particularly small businesses because they provide more to the economy than these large corporations like cvs, thank you. >> any other members of the public wish to comment? come on up. >> pardon me for being late, there was a two hour commute from nevado, my name is antoine, i'm one of the owners of 165 jefferson, in 1934, my father bought the property and it's still in the family,

although scattered amongst children and grandchildren, in 1934, my father bought the property put his hardware store in it in 1968, the [inaudible] restaurant burnt down and took my father's hardware store with it, they built two structures, ours was mostly shops, theirs, they had a restaurant and a bar downstairs and offices upstairs. thereafter, this being his, they closed the restaurant downstairs, but they leased upstairs to a bar called the silhouettes, so the premises next to joining us at 155 jefferson has had a liquor license on the first floor and a restaurant and then they had a stand alone restaurant upstairs, the trade upstairs was people that used to work in the area and of course with

respect to the situation now, the premises are to be leased hopefully to the gdl, gold dust lounge to put a bar just next door so the area is not stranger to a bar in that place and i would consider it that the resolution should pass and that the bar be allowed to continue or to be placed there at 165 jefferson street. >> okay, thank you very much. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor olague. >> i wanted to tlang the bovis's for hanging in there and finding a new location and relocating, i think it's to the issue that came up around the gold dust lounge that i think we still need to discuss here

as a city, the issue of the c-3 being exempt from any kind of conditional use when it comes to formula retail, i know it has to do with cost of rent and there are a lot of issues, perhaps a conversation with boma, but that is one of the few areas of the city where conditional uses where formula retail is allowed as of right, i think, not the only area but one of the few. also we came to the realization that landmark a building only preserves the exterior it doesn't preserve the culture, so i think that we still have that -- we're still in the midst of those conversations about creating cultural heritage districts throughout the city, we're more interested in what's in the building rather than just the building itself, so that's one of the challenges that i think we were struggling with when it came to pursuing the landmark indefinitely and to what end, you know, so anyway, those are -- i just want to thank you

again for hanging in there and hopefully we'll be at the opening of the gold dust lounge there in fisherman's wharf, so i would like to move this to committee -- move this out of committee. >> president chu? >> this is not a formula retail establishment, this is a one of a kind establishment and i certainly think there are element tos the gold dust lounge which are historic, that being said, given the rules that we have, it wasn't deemed such and needed to move, but i do hope and believe that this is an establishment that will soon become a neighborhood favorite and from my perspective, i think it's important for the fisherman's wharf community that only sees tourist community tho have a handful of places where local residence and is people can go,

and this is in part why i support this move, so with that, i appreciate supervisor olague's support and hope the committee will be able to move this in regard with recommendation. >> mr. clerk, we'll take supervisor olague's motion to move this in regard. can you please read this. >> hearing to consider that the transfer of a type 48 on-sale general public premises license from 247 pow we will street to a 165 jefferson street. >> good morning, president chu and supervisors, my name is rich, i'm a police inspector with the san francisco police department, the applicant has filed an application with the beverage control [inaudible] for 1201 minnesota street located on the south corner on

23rd street, it is an online order company and is not open to the public, this company has moved to 1201 minnesota street at their previous location of jarrold avenue. [inaudible] as far as police calls for services, there's been no reported police calls for service from july 2011 to july 2012, no regard of police reports from the same type period of july 2011 to 2012, this premise located in plot 314, the high crime area defined at 300 or more [inaudible] this has 109 reported incidents recorded from the year 2010, this is under the high crime area definition by 106 incidents.

the applicant premises is not located in a high crime area. the premises is located in census track 226, population for this track is 1534, active off-sale licenses are 4, applicant premise is located in an undue concentration area, there are no record of protests with with the california department of alcohol beverage control and there are no records of support with the california department of alcohol beverage control. there's no opposition from bay view station, the police department recommends approval, the following conditions have been recommended to the california department of beverage control, number 1, sales of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. monday through friday, the petitioner that be