sfgtv meeting of the san francisco small business commission occurring february 11, 2013, will begin shortly.

>> this commission meeting, the time is now 5:33 p.m. and the meeting is being called to order. at this time, please turn off cell phones and pagers and please sign up at the front table if you like to be added to the mailing list. public comment will be taken on each item and speaker cards are available at the front table. we would like to thank sfgtv for the continued support of our meetings. >> roll call, commissioner adams? >> here. commissioner dooley? >> here. >> commissioner dwight. >> here. >> commissioner o'brien? >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena notified me that he will be joining us shortly. >> commissioner white? >> here. >> commissioner rock-n-lock? commissioner riley.

>> approval of the minutes, documents draft, january 13th, due to revisions that were being made we do not have them available and we request a continuance to the next meeting. >> i move a continuance to the next meeting. >> i second. >> and all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> next item? >> commissioners, item three is general public comment, this allows the members of the public to comment in matters of the commission in the purview and suggestion for the future consideration, do we have any members of the general public here who would like to make a comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. next? >> item four, discussion and possible action to make recommendations on the board of supervisors, on board of supervisors file no, 130042,

planning code, medical service use, sacramento neighborhood commercial district. commissioners in the binder is the file number along with the legislative digest. we had schedule, cathrine stefani and she was not able nher place we have sophia hayward. >> the proposed ordinance will amend the planning code to permit a change of use from business to professional business to medical service use on the first floor or below within the sacramento street, neighborhood commercial district. which is a five-block stretch along sacramento street from spruce street rather to lion street in san francisco. so basically the way that it is now, is that new medical services are prohibited at the

ground floor and below, and when i say below there are a number of retail storefronts that are accessed by descending from the sidewalk from the half submerged level below the street. >> if it is adopted a change of use from business to professional service to medical service would be permitted providing that no residential use or active street frontage is lost. >> the planning department is recommending approval of this with minor modifications. the reason for that is that the department's position is that the language for the amendment is restrictive enough that the amrik ability is limited this will effect a handful of properties. if you have questions i will

try to answer in behalf of planning, and i apologize that katherine is not here. >> could you tell me what an active street frontage means? >> i can, i am sorry, i have a footnote and i think that i actually have the definition in the planning coat and the planning department case report so i can read it to you if it helps. it is a specific definition within the planning code, and within the neighborhood commercial districts, active uses are as follows. any principle, conditional or accessory use which by it nature does not require non-transparent walls. generally, that means, any reduction use that requires a solid wall that will block off the street frontage will be prohibited. in this specific case, there was formerly a publishing use in that space, that was categorized as a small business

use, not as a industrial use of any sort. >> commissioner o'brien? >> i was just curious, actually that the first question is going to ask you is what the services do you have in mind, but i think that those are the ones that you just listed there under 79, 114, those are the ones that you are allowing that are not allowed today. >> who is driving this? where did this idea come from? >> the proposed ordinance is supervised by supervisor ferrell and may be in response to a specific business in the ntd. >> thank you >> any other commissioner questions? >> i have just, i guess that i have a recommendation, so that will wait. >> any other commissioner comments? >> i have one. >> commissioner riley? >> yes. could you give any some background information as to

why the medical services were prohibited in the area? >> yes, i believe that at the time of the ncd controls were passed for the specific area, there was concern by the neighborhood group in the area, which i believe is fan the procidio heights. were concerned that there was an over concentration of medical uses that were at the first floor or below. >> okay. >> thank you >> commissioner dwight? >> does medical marijuana fall into this category? >> it does not. >> commissioner white? >> yes, you said that it was prohibited before? so is the out reach with the association in agreement with this now? >> i understand this, but yes, they are supportive of the ordinance. >> and they have not received it with the ordinances. >> i inquired with the sponsor

and they confirmed that the organizations were in support of the proposal. >> okay, any other commissioner comments? >> okay. we are going to open it up right now to public comment. do we have public comment on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed. and any other commissioner recommendations, or approvals. >> i have a recommendation that we might want to add an amendment that all of the windows in the front of these businesses remain transparent and open, so that we don't have that experience of like a blank space. >> sophia, the planning staff. i believe there are planning controls in place that will prohibit closing off the

windows to, the controls encourage the maintenance of an active street frontage and i believe that it will be prohibited to close them off. >> thank you. >> i have no objection to this. it seems like everybody wants it and the local people want this. so i would move to support this legislation as it is being presented. >> second. >> roll call? >> commissioners? we have a motion from commissioner o'brien to recommend approval to the board of supervisor of file number 1 30042 planning code medical service use sacramento neighborhood commercial district. seconded by commissioner dooley. on that motion, commissioner adams? >> aye. >> commissioner dooley? >> yes. >> dwight in >> yes. >> ortiz-cartagena is absent.

>> o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner white? >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> aye. >> that motion passes 6-0. >> great. >> thank you, the next item please,? >> commissioners you are now on item number five, presentation and discussion of the alcohol restricted use districts rud's in the city of san francisco, presentation by sophie hayward planning department staff. >> welcome. >> i have a hand out that may be helpful. so i will just step over here in a moment. >> i'm from the planning department staff, legislative affairs and thank you for having us, me this evening. i'm here just to give you a very general overview of our alcohol restricted use districts as defined in the planning code and what i am passing out to you now is a

two-sided hand out that is including the map of our alcohol restricted districts and on the opposite side there is a chart that identifies each district and then it outlines whether or not it includes a restriction of bars, restaurants, liquor stores, and how they deal with abandonment. if you like i would put this up on the board? >> for the benefit of the public, if you could put the chart and just for a moment so the folks can see. >> sure. >> as the map indicates, we have 7 districts that specifically restrict alcohol-related uses, and with those uses they include, on and off site consumption. in general the alcohol used

districts and i may as well call them ruds are introduced as legislation by district supervisors to deal with health and welfare in a geographic area. for each district, findings are made that note that the number of establishments that sell the alcohol in the district and associated problems, and a concern is typical across all of these ruds, that these outlets, these locations discourage more desirable and needed commercial uses within the area. ruds can prohibt based on abc license types or they could be restricted by use type as defined in the planning code. most distinguish between on site and off site consumption and whether it is served within a restaurant. if you turn to the chart on the

back. you will see that many, ruds allow new alcohol establishments that are established restaurant where they may restrict, bars, and i think that all of them restrict new liquor stores. ruds also address the transfer of existing liquor licenses within a geographic boundary and, that is very often a point of much discussion of the establishment of a new rud. whether there should be any new liquor licenses allowed in the area or whether or not existing licenses can be transferred. and i believe that we have one, yes, we have one alcohol restricted use district in which you are not allowed to transfer existing licenses, within the district. most districts you are allowed to transfer them with conditional use by the planning commission.

>> and as i said, most recently established or amended ruds have supported relocations, for the most part, the issues that generally come up with the establishment of a new rud have to do with prohibting the land use, verses controlling an operator and what i mean, the difference is that in terms of land use, there is not so, so much difference between a liquor store and a small grocery store, for example. it is just what is on the specific shelf. however there could be a very big difference in how the operators are perceived in the area between a liquor store and say a especially wine shop and so a lot of those happen around the time that an rud is formed. >> in some cases by establishing an rud, there can be unintended consequences such as the application of the quarter mile buffer for nc1 districts and what i mean by

that is that there exists a possibility in which the small... a small, corner store, for example, exists nearby an alcohol district. and it was the opportunity for a small wine shop. near but not within an alcohol restricted district, it would not be permitted. and then, finally, usually. i want to stress that primarily the issues of the establishment of a new rud is whether to allow the transfers of existing licenses from the abc within a defined area, and whether or not new restaurants that serve

food, bonefieed restaurants are allowed to serve alcohol. >> commissioner questions? >> commissioner white? >> quick question, so if there is an existing restaurant in this rud. and a new restaurant can come in that place, or it would not be allowed? >> it is in the same location, i believe that it would be allowed. provided that it is the exact same license type and it depends on the specific district, but i believe that even within the alcohol beverage which is primarily the most restricted you could as long as you are in the same location. >> didn't they just recently change some of the restrictions in the mission district? like with mission bowling, i know that they got... >> that is correct, there was an amendment that was introduced that extended the number of exceptions to the rud. you could always have a liquor license in association with a

bonefied eating establishment or restaurant, rather, and that was extended to include, i believe, bowling alley, and non-profit movie theaters. >> okay, great, thank you. >> any other commissioner comments? >> we have public comment on item number five? >> good evening, commissioners, my name is amy chin. >> let me call the item. >> just one moment. >> okay. >> we have public comment? >> you are doing public comment on this item? >> sorry. >> my name is amy chin i am the legislative aid for david chiu who is the sponsor. >> i want to give you background. >> this is an update. >> okay. >> we have not gotten to that yet. that is the next item.

>> okay, well, public comment on item number five, any other people? >> public comment is closed. thank you, sophie that was very informative and i didn't know that we had as many in this town as we thought we did. thank you very much for your presentation. >> all right. commissioners, item six, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 1 21065, planning code, zoning map, polk street, alcohol and tobacco paraphernalia restrictions. in your folder, and we have a presentation by amy chin. >> i jumped the gun. >> so, again, good evening, commissioners i'm amy chin and i am a legislative aid to david

chiu. and i wanted to take a couple of minutes to give you a background of why we introduced the legislation and to give you background on the corridor. >> it is in the supervisor's district is roughly spans from oferell, to california streets. this is a very vibrant corridor and has a lot of active night life, which many of you know, but the proliferation of the alcohol-related businesses in the corridor has impacted the quality of life for our neighborhood residents. so, some data from the planning department, we know that they are currently 45 existing alcohol permits for those six blocks on polk street and in the lower polk street. area. if we also include the middle polk street corridor, that number goes to 121 alcohol permits and actually just to give you a little bit of context, that corridor goes up

to filbert street. and so, this saturation of alcohol establishments, is what we are trying to address, in particular, again, the impacts and the adverse impacts on the quality of life for our neighborhoods, particularly around noise and public safety. that is why we work with the neighborhood association and with residents and in the lower polk street area to create a appropriate zoning control as well as to create more opportunities for neighboring serving businesses, to come and diversify the corridor. so, modeled off of other ruds and suds that exist in other districts, like market street districts, this lower polk street will do a couple of things, we would prohibt new bars, liquor stores and tobacco shops from coming into this region, from oferell, to

california streets. new restaurants, that are seeking type 40, permits that is hard liquor, would be required, would be permitted but would require conditional authorizations. and entertainment would also be permitted but require conditional authorization, we do create flexibility for existing businesses already in the corridor to transfer their alcohol licenses as sophie has alluded to before. and this is important component that we are protecting the businesses that are already in the region. and since we have introduced the legislation in the end of october we have met with a number of stake holders in our district and including the policy committee for this commission, the entertainment commission, the california music and culture association, and other groups that have been interested in our legislation.

per the policy recommendation last week we are open to exploring density controls and that is something that we will work on to better understand that option and how effective that option would be for achieving our policy goals. and now, to reiterate those goals, we are not trying to diminish night life in our corridor, but we are trying to make sure that we are adjusting the concerns that our neighborhood residents have brought to us and the ultimate goal is to make sure that lower polk is a vibrant, diverse and safe neighborhood. so i am happy to take questions and i believe that i don't know if sophie has more to add to what i have talked about? but this is the context of why we have introduced the legislation and where we are currently at now. thank you. >> commissioner comments?

>> is there a question as to why we couldn't just put it as a conditional use? >> why do we have to be a blanket on as opposed to controlling it with a condition. >> could you repeat the question? >> why do we need to put a total ban in place? could we not control the proliferation or adding a few bars or whatever, by conditional use? >> right. so the initial proposal to ban bars and liquor stores from this corridor has to do with the number of existing establishments that already exist in that six-block span. like i said we have already 45 existing permits in that corridor and from the experience of the residents as well as what we have heard, we believe that we have reached a

saturation point and so, the ban really speaks to whether or not we think that they are ready, and enough alcohol-related businesses in the corridor and whether or not we want to create other opportunities for other businesses to come into the corridor. it does not mean that scu could not possibly address that issue but that is where the initial proposal came from. really believing that we hit a saturation point and that you know, while we can create flexibility for businesses to transfer their licenses their feeling is that there is a lot already in the corridor. >> commissioner riley? >> yes, we heard this at the committee meeting. and at the time we asked whether or not the supervisor would support the proximity control in order to control the density. >> that is correct and our office has been working with it

and work from planning to look at what a proximity control would look like and whether or not it would be effective. so we have looked at what 100 feet and 300 feet control would look like and then, i think, that once we get a good sense of how that would work, and how it would impact the existing businesses and how it would allow for some more businesses to come in, but what exactly is the number? and we would again, i think, additional feedback from the neighborhood leaders and associations on that alternative. and we would very much be open to figuring out whether that is an appropriate alternative to the fun ban on bars. >> why are the restaurants of

47 being incorporated in this ordinance. >> whether or not we have a saturation in the corridor, bars and restaurant and liquor stores that have permits. what we have done in the legislation that the restaurants that only sell beer and wine, they can seek conditional use authorization to get those permits. and there would be no restriction on their hours of operation for those new restaurants that are seeking the 47 permits, we would have a time restriction on their operation up until midnight. again, the objectivity was to address whether or not we have too many alcohol permits in the corridor. and restaurant do add to the diversity of businesses in the region, and i am confident that

residents and the neighborhood association would like to see more restaurants in lower polk region. but we are also want to make sure that those restaurants are operationally and also converting to bars and clubs at night and that instead of just serving food for residents that it is really a place of entertainment and a place of a night life. so while we do want more restaurants to come into the region, i think that we are also trying to be cognasent of the issue when you are serving liquor at night. >> isn't the planning code, already set up that way for restaurants that offer food not to go into the nightclub, bars? >> that is correct. and you know, i think, i would say that that is true, the planning code does set that up. i think in reality, there may have been, there may be experiences