neighborhood. created such a problem that they were finally run out. what are they doing now? parking in the financial district east of union square. and walking across our neighborhood going to polk street for the bars and partying over there. and after they close, two or three or four o'clock in the morning, they are coming back. and sometimes as many as 100 in these groups. and it's very disruptive. so that's a side effect of what is happening on polk street. it never used to be that way. i have been in the area since 1955. and i left, went in the army, went to school and came back in 1965 and i have been living on the hill every since. there is a proliferation of alcohol licenses and entertainment permits that

should not be happening. and we are not notified when there is conditional use operation. this needs to be corrected. so that the neighbors know what is happening in their neighborhood. also the groups that are on polk street who are supposed to be representing the neighborhood. are approval these liquor licenses. one of the organizations approved seven in four blocks. they can't speak for the neighborhood. this is a large area. and it affects all of downtown civic center. that's from market street to bush to stroockton and franklin. it affects what is happening on polk. all the restaurants that used to be there with the 47 licenses are turning into clubs. that needs to stop. they are not bona fided eating

places. this legislation should be a blanket moratorium and we have to reduce what is there now to protect this neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. >> any questions? >> possibly later. >> thank you. >> (inaudible) cornell had a two o'clock meeting, okay, linda chapman for knob hill neighbors. i sent you a copy of restrictions for other districts. which are certainly more strict than what is proposed here. although this is model on some of them. i would like to refer to what happened with student housing. a lot of people discussed in a rationale way with the director that was responsible for a wonderful process. and a few people that didn't want to have controls.

and then all of a sudden emerged this thing from staff. we will throw that out and do everything by conditional use. i think you realized and a number of people pointed out, that was not going to work. if conditional use was going to work for this, it would have worked before. what is proposed here is to reduce the restrictions. the restriction now is 200 feet. it's not a hard firm, it's a guideline. both in abc law and i think in the planning code. the map you were given, this is completely inaccurate. i am not talking about missing one or two. there is one block where she shows five licenses and there is nine. and on california street there are two bars next to each other. and also eating places not shown. california street needs to be included in this. and the rest of ncd from california south. because it's very serious now.

and all of that area. and california street i understand has more proposed. i keep hearing. in fact i wonder why they wouldn't take a contract for the (inaudible) unless they want to turn that into a nightclub space. my sister took the bus the other night, the 19 on a saturday night about 11:30. the bus kept stopping. huge crowds outside of these bars. she said, why would anyone come? well, they don't but these youth. and now every bar they are all lined up out there. it's impossible for this number of bars to actually survive based on the people that live in the neighborhood or nearby. they are bussing people in from richmond and advertising at san francisco state. you cannot get on a bus like the 38, 1 or 5 sometimes, it's like

rush hour coming down. they pass you. what is the result? what is happening to the residents and the businesses? the coffee shops are closing at 8 o'clock instead of 10 or 9. restaurants are disappearing or their spaces are taken, or being priced out. the 1100 block is where we used to eat, those restaurants are gone now. you can't survive in these circumstances. please send this back to be looked at more instead of trying to do what staff is telling you to do here. >> patricia boyd, this is a 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.