city-wide issue, we are having similar ones on two different neighborhoods. one the problems we are having over the city are restaurants. with 47 and 48 licenses. people come in, they tell the abc it's going to be a restaurant with a bar. and all of a sudden it's a bar with tater tots and cheetos. in this legislation you could state some modifications if they are a restaurant, they must adhere to the law of 50%. food with booze. number two, is that we got a problem of enforcement. we have several complaints into the planning. we have had several complaints into the police. and several complaints into abc. and all of them are pointing to each other saying what the

ramifications are. and no one is doing anything. you need to specify or modify what the enforcement procedures are. and how it's going to be done. otherwise you will have hearings and hearings and all sorts of things. that's my input. thank you. >> commissioners, my name is sean marsiniac, i am a lawyer, and here for abc theater and parki parking garage. i am here to recommend that the commission consider nonsubstantive changes to the wording of the proposed ordinance and the resolutions. i have a map here, i could use the overhead.

so graphically you will see that the proposed lower polk street rud is the lots that are bounded in red. you can see from the map this is what is proposed in the staff report. that they do not include 1000 van ness, which is the part i drew in. this part right -- that's 1000 van ness. it's clear from the map that it doesn't include my client's property. however when you look at the wording of the proposed resolution in the ordinance. it actually brings in the narrative sense it brings the boundaries down to o'farrell. that is just below the hatch box that i drew. we are asking that the narrative

language in the resolution and ordinance, be modified to clarify that the stops placed in myrtle street is north of our property. it's clear and forecloses any amb ambut -- ambiguity in the future. that's my questions. >> any additional public comment? okay, seeing none. public comment is closed. i would like to ask and maybe staff could address this 1000 van ness. is it correct in the description it's included? >> the actually the description excludes that lot. the description says that the proposed sud would go as far south as accepting the lots that front o'farrell. and all the lots south of ob

taupele place and it's excluded and i understand the confusion. that's very much a nonsubstantive change that i don't think anyone would object to. >> commissioner antonini. >> yes, i would like to get some are information maybe patricia would like to come up and answer come questions. i missed some of your testimony. i am a little bit confused about the problem itself. when i am along polk street it's earlier in the day. and looks better than it used to. still has a way to go but it's getting better. i want to find out what is going on with the late-night stuff. for example is it bridge in

tunnel or are they people living in the city or people from the neighborhood? >> the polk street just like chestnut street. there are some bars that do bridge and tunnel. i think we have two. and then some bars that do the neighborhood. and then some bars that have a mix of everything. the big problem with, it isn't the bars it's more of who runs the bars. and we have had particularly coming throughout the northern station issue right now. we started a regressive way before saint patty's day, you will get charged with overpouring and can't sellout of bars. there is a lot of stuff going on and not in place since captain

(inaudible) has been here for a month. when you talk about how many times out of town with the olympics. the big issue is the restaurants. >> yeah, i heard that. >> and the fact they are coming in under the ospicious of being a restaurant. and one has quieted down, lightning, but the polk street and those here are having the same problem. it's a loophole to get around the legislation. and it has to be an enforcement procedure. because all the departments are pointing to each other, and that's causing a lot of this. and the other thing in all of our neighborhoods people don't like to write reports. particularly in the northern station that touches this.

they don't have number of police officers to handel all of these bar problems at night. and we need to work on that as well. but the big problem is they are coming in under the wrong ospicious and turning into something else. >> thank you, and the number are bars, you could have two or three out of control and could be as bad as having 20. >> yeah, and going back to the restaurant thing, when they turn into a bar than a restaurant. those are typically the ones that misbehave. >> were those issues? >> it's not the same. >> no, polk is worse, i have not seen another one unless the

density of broadway. if i can mention one thing, i hear about how it was 10 years ago and it was empty stores. yes, and empty stores were there because there were drug dealers all over. that's a police problem. there was a homeless shelter there. and a needle exchange. those are things to be addressed by the police and by changing the service environment. not by bringing in a lot of bars. i would like to suggest. and south knob hill where i was living for some time. we had an influx of drug dealers and prostitutes and all that. but they didn't solve it boy -- by putting in bars. the bars brought incredible problems. it's definitely a bridge and tunnel, plus youth from all over the city. like i said the ones coming in on muni. there are buses parked illegally

all over. >> thank you, i appreciate your comments. i am trying to get to the heart of the matter for those who have problems with it. but my general feeling there is probably a distinction because i am more familiar with union and chestnut. and i would think they have a higher incident of young people. that live in the area. but that's not the real issue here. i think we have to look at this zoning and make sure it doesn't make the situation any worse. but it also maybe gives us more controls. i am generally supportive of staff recommendations here. but i just wanted to get an idea of what might be done on a more enforcement level to keep things a little more under control. see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> yes, thank you for bringing this, i think it makes sense

around the tobacco paraphernalia. and i would like to talk about the thought of 300 radius than out-right ban. we have seen that an out-right ban on things is an issue. you put it in the code and another issue comes up in the future. and practically there makes sense to create radius levels of nonlocation. and i wanted to know your thoughts, it sounds like not supportive of the 100. >> the other way around, 300. >> yes. sorry. >> generally the feedback from the residents and the restaurant owners that the density controls could be an effective alternative to the out-right cap. as i mentioned residents prefer the cap. and part of the frustration folks feel there is issues on

friday and saturday night and thursday night on polk street and we are working on the restaurant and bar owners to engage them with dialogue with the residents. and the police to see what we can do to address the immediate issues. but we want to look long term to see what we can do to tackle this saturation problem in the long term. in the long term. you know 45 is a lot for six blocks. i think there is not necessarily a number, we can't identify what is the absolute threshold. but 45 feels like a lot for the neighborhood. we would generally be open to the density control, 100 feet, or 150. 300 is the equivalent of a ban or finite cap. we would look at 100 to 150 feet for cap on bars. >> do you know the restaurants, what i see the issue on polk the

issue is the bars. not the restaurants. i wondered if you knew the proportion of restaurants and bars. >> yes, there is some accuracy issues with the data. the map itself we are looking at, not every dot represents just one establishment. but they should reflect the 45 of all. and from the data we have, of those 45, 11 are off sale and 12 onsale. and 13 bars. that doesn't sound like a lot. but about one-third of the total liquor licenses in the six-block region. if you were a resident in the neighborhood and you go to bars and restaurants that serve liquor. this in accumulation feels like

a lot. they experience the noise issues and the people at 2 a.m. leaving. overall there is something we need to do to address all of this. both in the immediate term as well as the long term. >> the challenge is this, we all know that there are some places that are popular. and go off. and then all of a sudden no one cares about it. and a new neighborhood and a place that is popular. part of the challenge we have, when i lived in that neighborhood, polk street was moderately popular but the only place that people went to was hemlock, and now it's a popular street. before it was 11 street and not as popular. the hard thing i think when you try to tackle that specific issue. is that we can't predict popularity of establishments. and part of the challenge is places become hot and then they

are not hot. and in terms of bars versus restaurants. people are probably not (inaudible) thai place but it has a liquor license and counted as the whole. i don't have an issue of dealing with that but i want say that for the record. that's the challenge whether creating legislation around this. because you can't control what is popular and how long. you look at a sunday morning for brunch, and some places have a line down the street and some places are vacant. but we wouldn't create control for people not to have long lunch lines. there is practical issues and working with operators along polk street is part of that. and doing some density control makes a lot of sense. in terms of the rational around the restaurants. i don't think i got that, especially if a restauranta --

because i do believe, and chestnut and the triangle when people came in for longer hours. we were supportive because so many people need to eat and having restaurants is valuable for that purpose. if you were worried that making a requirement that restaurants serve food until closing time may be more effective. i believe that a restaurant crowd is different. >> right, i appreciate those comments. i think that the neighborhood wants to see restaurants in the corridor and those that operate in the day-time. for restrictions for those serving alcohol, that they are not turning into de facto bars. and the code has a definition of what a bona fide restaurant should be or not. and the neighborhood was concerned about a restaurant open until 2 a.m. and serving

spirits and not food. and that's an enforcement issue, totally understood. but the neighborhood had that concern and wanted us to address that concern. that being said, we heard from other folks that restaurants that serve food in the night time could act as an alternative to bars. and could be a good way to mitigate all the quality of life issues of all the traffic going to the bars and not the restaurants. so we see how this could be an alternative to the bars. and would be open to pulling back on some restrictions around the hours. we have heard that. >> i speak for the restaurants and have a requirement to serve food until closing time. that would make them serve until midnight. i would be supportive of that and wait for other

commissioners. >> commissioner. >> i agree with passing this legislate and maybe don't need in five years. my question is have you thought of alternatives sun setting the ban, having a ban that sun sets in three years. i don't know if i feel 150 feet seems arbitrary and maybe there are areas you can still have a bar. i don't know if that works. and if you make it large enough, it is in essence a ban and we may be back revisiting that in a couple of years. >> we had actually not thought about that in the language of the legislation does not include a sunset. but i think makes sense given your comments about the difficulty of forecasting what is going to happen in a year, two years, three years, four years. to clarify our objective, we want polk street to be vibrant but not the problems associated

with alcohol and proliferation. that is something that we can definitely consider. i feel more comfortable talking and going back to the neighborhood leaders and association, and talk about what makes sense in terms of a sunset. but i think that's an appropriate recommendation for us to add that into the legislation. >> okay. i think, i know they talked about it in valencia a time-out from restaurants and that may work. >> commissioner. >> i think in neighborhoods where there was a numeric cap, maybe it applied to restaurants and maybe bars too. i don't remember. but it took a long time before there began to be sort of the neighborhood letting up on allowing more restaurants to come in. and so i think that if people are thinking we should have some kind of sunset here.

i don't know whether it's three years or five years or something. but that might be an interesting idea. the other thing, i misread this, the staff recommendation. because i thought it was prohibition within the 1 z100 f and cu's everywhere else. and now i understand that cu's everywhere and within 100 feet then the staff recommendation would be negative. i would more comfortable if we adopt some density control through the number of feet from a bar, that it be -- i am comfortable with 100 feet. but within 100 feet no new bars. and outside of that there it would be a conditional use proce process. that's my comment. >> commissioner moore.

>> i would like to talk about the metrics of density of quantity. that part of town is 275 by 412. with a small side facing in the east/west direction. the block is 275 feet long. which gives you about a maximum of eight to 10 store fronts per block. the issue is not so much the 100 feet away from each other. but might not be more than two per block. to determine how you do 100 feet may still create a strange pattern. and it might indeed not fall where vacant or potential applications fall. but saying there is a maximum number per block is perhaps a better manageable matrix. because if you have 275 feet on each block, what do you do? >> that's an interesting point.

and just briefly to that. as staff's recommendation is currently, it would be the department's practice as part of commission policy to recommend this approval. but if you did find that given the location of other bars on the block. that maybe that wasn't an appropriate location you can still approve it. it's not an out-right prohibition. and still before you even with 100 feet of another location. >> i am hearing from a number of members of the public and testimony,some of this is more of an enforcement problem than strictly numbers. in other words brought up to restaurants and type 47 restaurants and they are morphing into bars, particularly. and that is something that hopefully somehow through law

enforcement or other ways to enforce they are serving over 30% of their revenue is from food service. sometimes there is more emphasis on the quantity but it's more about the quality that is there. if there is bars overserving or bars not following the right dictates of good service. there is a problem, and maybe a new bar is one that is a little more upscale and a different kind of situation. and the same is true of restaurants. i am inclined to make a motion with approval of staff recommendations. there are other commissioners with comments. part of my motion would ask that there be more attention to enforcement of what is existing. and making sure that things are

done the right way. i would be in agreement that a c.u. be allowed for new bars not within 100 feet of another. they would be prohibited within 100 feet. and they have to get a c.u. to be established in the areas not prohibited. and then type 47 restaurants would allowed. and i believe they would have conditional use, is that what part staff is recommending? >> yep. >> i think they have to? >> yes, the original legislation would require new restaurants obtaining 47 licenses to get a c.u. approval. >> yep and they have to get a c.u. and then as far as the abandonment period. i think three years is probably a little bit more customary than

what we usually do with that. as far as the midnight thing, i would be okay with removing it in my motion. but they have to continue food service until allowed to close. which is 2 o'clock for the end of alcohol service. and again this is something that we have to police. i think there is a good argument if there is legitimate food service going on, sometimes it supplements some of the drinking. people go to eat after they have had a few drinks. and the tobacco part in my motion i would remove that. it sounds like it will be hard to enforce as is pointed out. so essentially the staff position i believe. >> just to clarify, if i understood correctly. you would recommend that there within 100 feet be prohibited. that's different from the staff recommendation. that you can still apply for that c.u. within 100 feet.

but we would recommend disapproval. >> i think we should have the 100 feet barrier there, particularly for the bars. maybe a restaurant, maybe a modified restaurant could try to do within 100 feet. but the bars not allowed within 100 feet of another. >> so if prohibited outright they could not apply. and that's different from the staff recommendation. >> that would be our preference, to have the prohibition within the 100 feet. >> yeah, for bars. >> right, not including restaurants. >> commissioner sagaya. >> i will second that. >> in the 100 feet it's not addressing the problem, and it's an overconcentration of 6 blocks. and whether this is a block

within that six blocks. you can't put new ones. it doesn't necessarily address the issue. i don't know what the 100 feet gets us. i would be more open to the ban. the outright ban in the rud. with that sunset in two years or three years, when we have to take a break from bars and restaurants and reevaluate that after three years. >> commissioner borden. >> i take a different tact, if we do an outright prohibition. i look at rush street that has restaurants and those are not the liquor licenses. some people feel too many restaurants; right. that's a different story. but my point is that all liquor licenses are not created equal. and the nuisance created by them is not equal. by abc's basic rules.

the entire city and county of san francisco is oversaturated. we have way more liquor licenses than what the code says. you could theoretically go anywhere in the neighborhood and put an out-right prohibition of 100 feet. and you could. if you are talking about saturati saturation, that point is pretty much everywhere. that's why i don't think you want to go with an out-right ban. and it's the practice of those establishments. and distinguishing those places that are bars versus restaurants. and some are providing a different experience than others. some are nuisances and some are. and the bigger issue that we went to, we can't determine what is hot and not. and that creates a nuisance.

and those people with huge lunch crowds it's a nuisance. but it's a different kind of nuisance, while people are standing in front in their property. that's why i don't think that makes sense, you could ban that everywhere in the city. >> commissioner. >> the issues are specific to this particular area. and that's why the legislation came up in the first place. is it isn't like it's all over the city, i understand commissioner borden's argument. i understand it's to the neighborhood and why i like commissioner hill's approach. in other neighborhoods things have changed and then the neighborhood said we should add a few more restaurants along chestnut street, for example. i think we should allow more restaurants along filmore and

those evolved when the neighborhood complained about the proliferation of bars and restaurants. and then five or 10 years later things have evolved. and people are saying, that's then and this is now. and we need to re-examine it and change it. and what i think what commissioner hillus is trying to do, maybe we cannot anticipate the change. but maybe in five years it will have changed and we can re-examine the situation at that time. commissioners may i respond to one point that commissioner sugaya made. how to craft this legislation is language the lines of operators and how existing opers