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 with existing businesses that have had an issue of while they are in operation, they are not really serving a lot of food and it is... there is a balance between whether or not they are still operating as a restaurant and at night, you know, or if they are more acting as a club or a bar, and that is clearly an enforcement issue too, but we want to be mindful, when we are creating a system that we are not, that we are addressing this through the legislation. >> but you are correct in that enforcement is something that we need to look at. >> commissioner dooley? >> have you considered allowing limited live entertainment as a right? the legislation rather than and just have the cu for full entertainment? >> that is the way that the legislation is currently set up.

so live is mer permitted and live entertainment is su. >> and any other comments? >> i personally agree with the fellow commissioners, i would like to see some type of boundary, whether it be 100 feet or 150 square feet. and i don't like the word ban. like right now, and i have gone down to lower polk and it is going through a renaissance right now, which is good. and you are seeing more and more people out on the streets going to bars, restaurants and clubs. i don't mind a ban on new liquor stores because i think that the problem with that area. but, i don't like to see a ban on like bars and restaurants. it is a bonefied restaurant

they can get in with a cu, i understand that. >> it is coming back to life after years of not having any life and so when you bring the people into the neighborhood you are bringing in vitality and i know that it is changing. so one of the things that i do like is having the... i would like to see in this legislation is spacage, whether it is 100 feet between venues or 200 rather than out and out bans. >> i am surprised that david chiu. >> correct. >> because david kind of seems to be stay there in the middle and he does not get too far on the extremities. i am surprised i thought that he would be shy to use the word ban just in the man's demeanor and so i am surprised. >> my cut reaction initially is it seems quite restrictive sort

of a little bit over powering to me. the initial reaction that we could possibly get the same desires and results and that combination of more enforcement and you know, a strong application of the cu process. >> yes, so as i mentioned, the article was not to diminish the night life on the polk street corridor. we feel like the vibrantcy is important to the residents and obviously to the existing businesses that are already there and we want to make sure that we are protected and like i said we are very open to working with the planning department and exploring what an appropriate density control alternative would be. and looking at whether that is 100, or 200 square feet and what that would mean for the

neighborhood. >> okay. any other commissioner comments before we open it up to public comment? okay, let's have public comment on item number 6. is there anybody who would like to make public comment? on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> i also think that the proximity limit is going to be just as useful as the total ban. i sympathize in terms of, we need to, you know, think about daytime use, and that balance, and if there is an overwhelming amount of night-time businesses only. we do need to have a balance that helps keep it lively during the daytime also.

also, in terms of cus, you know, let's face it, we just don't have any enforcement. you know, we are just under budgeted and we just don't have it. so, i would agree with my other commissioners that a proximity ban would be appropriate and a less let's droconian and would i think, achieve that balance. >> commissioner riley? >> yes, i agree. and i think that the objective is to make sure that we provide the opportunity for other businesses coming in to the proximity controls would be able to accomplish that. once you pass the ban, i assume that it would take a long time and a lot of process in order to lift the ban. is that right? >> i also heard the legislative aid right there that they are willing to go back and also

talk to the planning department again, right? >> so, i am just wondering if we could, get commissioner riley could help us, to formulate a recommendation to explore further what the planning commission and something that might be a little bit version of light and what they are suggesting on using the control that he just mentioned. >> yeah, i like that. >> if i could go along with that. let's see what chris has. >> may i, so, staff has provided you with some maps in your binders. >> great. >> and with a proximity map, taking a look at 100-foot buffer, 150-foot buffer and

300-foot buffer. there are several ways to go about this, either say that we are going to our recommendation is to work with the proximity and not make a recommendation on the amount, you could say, we recommend a certain amount of proximity or not-to-exceed a proximity buffer, there are certain ways that you can go about this to provide the supervisor with direction and as clear of a direction as you think is necessary in relationship from the small business perspective for this. piece of legislation. so i don't know if that is a discussion that the commission wants to have in terms of the specifics in that. >> in particular, also, they are not-to-exceed distance that you would like to recommend in terms of proximity. because you notice that some of them will serve as a ban, for instance, whereas others are less onnerous any guidance that the staff can receive to

articulate your position to the planning commission and the legislative sponsor. >> looking at a map, are you done? >> i am done. >> looking at the map, i see that with the 300-feet, it is not going to provide any opportunity of any new bar or restaurant. so, i would recommend proximity be 100 to 150 feet and not-to-exceed 200. >> i agree. i agree with that. >> do we want to make a motion on this? >> yes. >> i am sorry, did you, so, commissioner rilely has put it out there that make a recommendation not-to-exceed 200. >> be careful because 200 is going to do almost effectively

what 300 does. >> 150. >> 100 to 150. >> 150 looks all right. >> yeah. >> 150 is kind of in the middle. >> yeah. >> it will be 100 not-to-exceed 150. >> okay. >> i move that we make a recommendation on this legislation and the polk street rud, that the sponsors look at proximity controls rather than an out right ban in the area. we also recommend that the proximity be in the 100 to 150-foot range, not-to-exceed 150 feet. >> i second. >> roll call? >> do you have a question? chris? >> i just wanted one of the discussions that we had in the

policy committee is whether there will be a sunset clause? and i don't know if you wanted to have any discussion on that? or any of the items that we discussed in the committee before moving forward? >> staff just wants to make sure to have the commission's position fully articulated. >> i think that three to five years sunset provision would be reasonable. >> let's add that to the motion that we recommend a three to five year sunset provision. >> yes. >> and that the board of supervisors may extend this legislation for longer than 3 to 5 years by ordinance. >> okay and then another discussion that we had had to do with entertainment conditional use for entertainment. do you want to provide the staff with any direction on that? >> i think that there should have cus for full entertainment license but not for limited live. >> right.

>> and then my last question for commissioners, is regarding there are two more questions that i have for staff direction. would be on restaurant type 47 licenses, and then also if you would like to grandfather in the businesses that have already applied for alcohol licenses. >> to be clear, are you stating you have applied but have not opened? >> have applied but not received final sign-off. >> do we know how many? >> sign-off from the planning... >> in terms of they don't have a completed, it has not been fully approved by the abc and there is one that i know of on geary street. >> i think that would be fair to say that we would grandfather in. >> we would grandfather in any

pending applications. >> i support the restaurant 12 am provision personally, but i don't necessarily feel like we have to put that in our motion for restaurants that have full bars >> right. >> do you want to add that or do you want to leave that out? >> it is the way that it is already. >> yes. >> and i just wanted to be fully clear that when we write the response to the department and to the board that we can fully articulate what you have. and i think that i have the guidance that we need. i feel like we can. >> do you want to read it back? >> commissioners regarding supervisor board two, 121065, planning code, zoning map, district we would recommend the proximity control as outlined in the discussion of 100-foot preference not-to-exceed 150 feet. commission recommends a three

to five year sunset provision at which time the board of supervisors could extend the permit and the restricted use district. it supports conditional use for entertainment but supports not having any restrictions on limited live performance and the commission would like language to grandfather pending applications. and i have a motion by commissioner dooley, i did not note a second. >> i second. >> so i have a second by commissioner yee riley? >> yes. >> would you like a roll call? >> commissioner adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley? >> yes. >> commissioner dwight? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien? >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner white. >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> yes. that passes 7-0. >> thank you. >> next item.

>> commissioners you are now on item number 7. discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 1 21211, administrative code resending sunset on the san francisco bonding and financial assistance and we have a presentation by matt hansen, the city of administrators. >> welcome, matt hansen. >> thank you. >> glad to be here. it is up here going for you. just a second. >> if all also fails, we have printed copies.

>> >> there we go. >> apologies for the technical difficulties. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners and thank you for hearing this. our presentation on this item

in your interest in the legislation. my name is matt hansen and i am the director of the risk management division of the city administrator's office and i would like to talk with you tonight about the proposed legislation but also give you some history on the city and county of san francisco surty bond and finance program that has been in effect for quite some years and we will go through the history and the goals of the program and talk a little bit about the structure of the program. and then, an overview of the pending legislation, and then the operational effects of the pending legislation for your consideration. >> so the program formally established in 1997, but in draft and pilot form, prior to that, was designed to help small firms vying for city contracts and to level the playing field for smaller to be able to get bonding assistance to bid