>> good afternoon, welcome to the supervisors board meeting. the committee vice-chair, to my left is supervisor david chiu, also a member of the committee and we are joined today by supervisor john avalos. i want to thank sfgtv staff and caroline for broadcasting today's meeting. miss miller are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to

silence all devices and documents included in the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. please call item no. 1. item no. 1 is to delete the sunset of alcohol restricted use. >> avalos is the author of item no. 1. >> thank you, chair wiener and thank you colleagues for weighing on this measure. this is about the alcohol restricted use district which was established in 2008 by supervisor gerardo sandoval. that measure was to sunset in 5 years which will be on april 17th. this ordinance is before you is removing the sunset clause of that so we can actually have a full continuances of the alcohol

restricted use district moving forward. we have 13 off sale liquor license and would like to stay in that number. in the past the district has had a large number of it's that result from saturation of liquor stores and this that will prevent that to occur by limiting off sale. this is a measure supported by many organizations including the improvement association and the action group and the association representing various neighborhoods in district 11 and has unanimous support from the small businesses commission. this ordinance is part of an effort that we'll be addressing in the

neighborhood commercial district in the next several weeks will be coming before us today, a measure that we are looking to build some standards and conformity for this part of san francisco that will encompasses our corridor and alcohol restricted use district as well as saturated of dependence dispensary in the area as well. heyward is here from the department to supply a presentation on the order nabs as -- ordinance as well. >> thank you, miss heyward? >> good afternoon, chair, wiener and supervisor and planning staff. i'm here to reiterate what supervisor avalos said. this was at the march 21st hearing recommending approval with no modifications

and there is no opposition that we are aware of. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any comments? >> one comment before you go to public comment and that is that this ordinance encompasses from silver avenue to the city border. when i come to the neighbor district ordinance, that will encompasses this alcohol restricted use and will broaden the scope from 280 to city border with the alignment with the concerns of people in my district. >> my read of the legislation is that it applies to exclusively to off sale. not to prevent a bar or restaurant or something on-site? >> that's right. if there is a restriction, people can actually come set up on sale

sites in the district. >> good. if there are no further comments why don't we open up for public comment. this is item no. 1 related to the alcohol restrict use district. i have three speaker cards. did you want to do a public comment? >> so we have shawn, and joel kimly. >> i'm shawn marsini. i want to talk about item 3. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm angie men ken chair of the group and i'm here to support this legislation. we are in full support of it. i think

it's very important for the excelsory neighborhood. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, i'm president of the merchants and residents association and resupport the legislation and welcome your support. thank you. >> thank you for being here. >> okay. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> okay. just want to urge your support colleagues. this is something very meaningful to a wide varied -- variety of people in our district. i urge your support. >> thank you. supervisor kim? >> i was going to make a motion to move with recommendation to the full board. >> i would be happy to support that >> yes. is that a motion to

forward the committee report, supervisor? >> motion to include a committee report. >> thank you. i will be supporting this. i will say this is an on going discussion in the city about alcohol and some of the positives and negatives and one thing that i think is important to keep in mind and this legislation does have some of the what have become standard findings about the negative aspects of alcohol and there certainly are negative aspects and i think it's important to keep in mind some of the positive that nightlife contributes to our economy and our sfe -- city and this is off course due to off sale. i think it's important when addressing some of the issues that alcohol may cause the neighborhood to narrow and this legislation does that quite well, i will be

supporting it. colleagues any additional comments? >> no. okay. then can we take that motion to forward as a committee report with recommendation without objection? that would be the order. madam clerk please call item no. 2. >> alcohol and tobacco restriction and the use district? >> supervisor chiu is the author. >> colleagues about 5 months ago i introduced this legislation to replace some alcohol related restrictions. according to the alcohol beverage control there are 6 between the blocks of polk street there are 121 total permits. while i appreciate the

vibrancy this has at night, but in terms of noise, public drunkenness and a number of groups, the neighborhood association, neighbors from nob hill and other residents asked us to work with them to find a solution to the problem and i thank them for the work as well as the owners of these establishments have done with our office to move this forward. mike, with this legislation it's been to ensure that nightlife continues to thrive on polk street while maintaining controls to keep the neighborhood diverse and safe. the polk street use agency using other models such as mission street. it will state a cap on new bars, liquor

stores and tobacco shops but it does create flexibility for all existing businesses to their alcohol licenses which is an important component to ensure that existing businesses are protected. we also and want to thank the small businesses commission, the entertainment commission and planning commission for their consideration in this support as well as their proposed rms which reflected feedback that we received from venues along polk street. so to that i would circulate a number of maents amendments to ensure a number of things. first that he allow new restaurants that seek type 41 permits for conditional use without restrictions. eliminate the conditional use requirements of folks who might consider transferring their

liquor license from 6 months to a year and giving a little bit more time for that transition period for those businesses an we also add a 5 year sunset date to this legislation. it is my hope in the next couple years that we'll be abe to see some positive impacts and move this forward in a good way. the changes that i have proposed were actually timely submitted subject to legislation last week but not included in this agenda so i will submit today in this amendment. at fist i heard there were mostly non-substitute, but do they need to be? >> you can make the amendment today and send it to the full board. >> great. colleagues ask me to consider this amendment and hopefully neck -- next week for passage to the board. this

is one part of the solution for neighborhood quality of life issues in addition to the work we are doing with the san francisco police and i'm drafting a new piece of legislation that came with the entertainment and bar community. at this moment only certain lifetime requirement to abide by these conditions to be a good neighbor . i'm working with our nightlife entertainment co-owners that will adopt new policy for all nightlife establishments and hope this could be a model for how we think about managing these issues in other neighborhoods. my goal is that we take a protective approach to keeping the lower polk neighborhood vibrant and we are doing that with this legislation and on going

dialogue along better enforcement and i would like to thank my aid amy chan who has been able to strooic the right balance on this and with that turn it back to you, mr. chair. >> thank you president, chiu. >> supervisor kim, any comments? >> thank you. i'm looking over the amendments. i think my questions have been addressed. i was wondering if 6 months was enough time for an establishment for the necessary repairs. that was one of my questions. it seems like a year was agreed upon an is an adequate amount of time. my second question was on restaurants, if they do serve food they should be allowed to offer that as another option if people need food to sober up. thank you.

>> we have some departments here as well. >> yeah. i would like to invite, we have a couple of department representative. i don't know who wants to speak first but office of small businesses? >> good afternoon, chair wiener, supervisor kim and supervisor david chiu, director of small office business. the small business commission heard the legislation on march 11th and did recommend approval and one of the discussion we had at that time was our recommendation was doing more of a proximity control and with the recommendation of proximity controls within 150 feet. but, supervisor chiu did convene a meeting with the bar owners in the polk street district which

our office attended and their preference was not to go in that direction so we will respect what the businesses direction was given to the supervisor. their concerns as expressed to us is that if their lease should end because our recommendation was without a restricted use, if there wasn't an implementation of a sunset date that their concerns that it maybe more difficult for them to relocate . with that understanding the proximity controls is a recommendation and not something that is hard we'll hold to. we do support the changes around the limited life performance and removing the conditional use for entertainment and appreciate the abc licenses that are applied to before the implementation date of the

legislation are grandfathered in and that is a 5 year sunset. one item that the commission didn't get into extensive discussion but since there is a sunset with this, is that on page 5, where it says as long as the location of the establishment does not exceed the square footage use of sales is not increased, so if a business should move, that maybe something in five years from now should there be an interest to extend the restrict use district that we might want to revisit because currently in the discussion with the bar owners we had with the supervisor chiu's office their leases are fine within this 5 year period but should a lease not be extended and they choose to move into a pro the that is 1 or 200 square foot

more than their current property, that is not an sentence ever amount of difference in square foot but this would prohibit that from moving into that new facility. but at this point with the sunset clause, that i think we are okay with that. so that said, i think there has been a lot of thought, a lot of work with the community and so do recommend it. i do think the commission in general has some concerns around the restricted use and especially if there is not some flexibility because it does retain the entities that tend to be the problem and this is something that we see in particular with the concept of liquor stores. there is a lack, i think sometimes of residents of understanding that a wine

shop is also a liquor store. with pretty severe restrictions, it also prevents new businesses and new business models from coming in. but that is sort of a separate note in relationship to this piece of legislation. >> with that, the commission does recommend approval. and if you have any questions i'm happy to answer them. >> president chiu? >> i just want to make a comment and i appreciate the discussion that the small businesses commission had particularly on a cap on the new license and the control in case the colleagues were interested. there was an issue on density control because if you put a limit and say there is not a license within 300 feet. that is a ban or a cap. it was difficult to figure out so what we agreed to do instead

the director just said we agreed to sunset this in 5 years which was about the time for many of the owners in the area to consider renewing leases again just to make sure that we were bouncing these interest, but not putting something in place that we can predict. that was the response. >> i had a question about off sale liquor establishments. are there generally time restricted hours in term of the sale at these establishments? >> in general, yes. and i think, it's dependent upon each liquor license. but i think with your off sale, if you are thinking of your smaller establishments, they are usually within i would say normal operating hours. so there may be a corner store or

you have your safe ways, some of your other larger retail establish ments that might have longer hours. >> so 10:00 can be an hour that most establishments would finish the sales of off sale liquor? >> again, i think it's one on the business model, but i think in general, there could be somewhere between 10:00-midnight. it depends. >> if the liquor store is open beyond the 24 hours. i know liquor stories open beyond the 24 hours. is it possible to have a permit that allows you to sell passed midnight? >> while we may ask nightlife

for example to apply for an after hours permit, ways to extend their hours for distributing alcohol on site, you don't have any sort of process where we ask small businesses to do the same, do we? >> no. at this point no we don't. >> okay. thank you. >> i have a question. i don't know if this is for planning or for the author. i know that as supervisor kim and i we went through quite a process on the mission alcohol special use district which is significantly more restricted which i appreciate president chiu that you did not go as far as the mission in terms of that intermission, there is no internal transfer ability. it actually only allows large mega supermarkets to obtain a liquor

license. it a rational piece of legislation at least in the current context. i appreciate this doesn't apply to that, but supervisor kim and i sponsored several pieces of legislation because they presented for example in bowling alley would not be able to serve like in the roxy theatre was not able to serve any alcohol and we made exceptions for those categories. one requirement for the mission district is that it's overly broad in terms of the types of businesses especially new and innovative businesses and supervisor and i are working on legislation into more exceptions. in terms of this legislation, i couldn't tell in reading it