alerted me i should have given you the opportunity to speak in the beginning so this is a mixture of allowing you to present but also we're still in public comment as well. supervisor. >> i have questions of the authority. >> okay. so if you could finish your presentation. >> okay. so also in the packet we have letters of support from businesses and such, and then towards the end, the last paper clipping, we're showing other businesses that are similar to the model that we're going with. they're also nail salons or hair salons that are serving alcohol. actually one is in san francisco. it's called the beauty bar and they do manicures and martinis and you can see on the website that we printed out, and as well as the next page theory nail lounge. it's in

california but not in san francisco but these are just some other -- they also do nails and serve beer and wine, so just other platforms on that last comment, and basically just a little bit of background about us. we have been in business since 2005 and we've grown our salon. we have been servicing more than 20,000 customers and we've been invested in san francisco, san francisco magazines. allure magazine and others and just to name a few so we have this demand not from -- we had the demand from all of the local residents because we have been a destination spot as well. >> thank you. now let me ask if there is anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none public comment is

closed. supervisor wiener. >> thank you. it's sort of an odd situation. it's like two ships passing in the night and maybe that's because during the process there was no support -- actually -- >> yeah but thank you very much. >> there was no letters of support or opposition and i think maybe a concern that there was some sort of sketchiness happening with massages and no license or whatever it was but it seems clear from extensive letters and it's a reputable nail spa so my question to alu have you gotten this packet? okay. do you have an extra copy for the police? >> no. we haven't received it.

>> mr. chair it seems from what i seen this could be a appropriate license and maybe we should continue this to allow the police the opportunity to review the packet of additional materials. >> i think that would be fine. i am supportive now of the extensive outreach and supervisor zane kim who is supportive because of that i will willing to be supportive but open to ideas of continuing as well. supervisor yee. >> before i decide on that piece can i have alu come up again. can you -- what was the rational for disapproval in. >> well, let me say this. we're not against them or a spa that serve alcohol. there is the planning -- it's the type of license also -- it's a type 42

license is basically a beer and wine bar tavern, so that is the license so no minor under 21 is allowed to go into any area that is registered with abc. they have to register abc, the area they're going to serve, store alcohol, so no one under 21 is allowed. that's by state law, so i don't know the day we design their area where they will serve, where they will not serve, where under 21 is allowed, so it's sort of -- improvement plan we haven't received, and it's sort of sketchy at this point because basically if you grant a 42 type license and anybody under 21 is not allowed, and also they can

serve alcohol anywhere within the diagram area that they submit to abc. >> okay. i would be supportive of a continuance and if we have a continuance and you relook at some of the new information, and bring it back. i would like the owners to consider the question i asked earlier about what percentage of the gross receipt is alcohol versus service? i would like some details around that and maybe have some limitation focus there are any and not 50-50 or whatever it is. >> >> let me say i am supportive of a continuance but i am noting that the applicants dion cheng and rachel cheng submitted this application and came in september so this has been going on, but it's a good lesson that communicating very closely with

the police and also showing your community outreach plan early opposed to the day of the hearing is really important, but i'm open to a continuance for another couple of weeks as my colleagues are suggesting. supervisor wiener. >> i am open to putting it forward with a recommendation today. i actually -- i wouldn't be supportive of trying to micro manage the business in terms of what percentage of gross receipts. i think that gets pretty onerous with businesses and we seen some of the conditions attached by the planning commission or the police department and it's a little too much. everything i have seen here this is a reputable business, so if we -- so i'm open to going either way, so mr. chairman. >> i think a couple of other facts that are relevant it's right near south park. a lot

of the residents written in support and residents and businesses are in support and not in a high crime area so my assumption if the packet was reviewed by the police they would see the business plan which looks like a wonderful layout of the business and expansion and clear area where the alcohol is consumed versus the spa area, and i'm supportive i think of moving this forward today, but i'm wondering if there are other comments from colleagues? supervisor wiener. >> i suggest that we put it out with a recommendation. this would go on a week from tuesday to the full board's agenda so a week and a half and maybe during that time alu and the applicant could talk about what some appropriate conditions might be, and then if there is agreement working with supervisor kim's office as well we could then make an amendment at the full

board to incorporate that agreement so we do have a full i think 12 days between now and when this comes to the full board which seems like plenty of time to sit down and have that conversation. >> i think that's a great idea. i could see also from the notes and emails back and forth with supervisor kim's office ms. cheng and the applicant really did make an effort to try to reach out, but it seemed that there was over load of work within that office but i think a week and a half to really work with the police to at least communicate would be a great idea. any other comments? supervisor yee? >> no. i think supervisor wiener's suggestion is a good session. i will support that. >> thank you. without other comments can we move this forward without objection? thank you item number two mr. evans. >> yp two is a hearing to

consider the issuance of off sale liquor license for f.m. smokes and wines located at 57 new montgomery street. >> so can we ask the applicant to come forward first and i know this was continued from our last meeting or from two meetings ago. >> good morning. from the last meeting i reach more to the community and i took some pictures of my store and i spoke to the owner of the building about my idea and he was supportive of my idea and we have [inaudible] in my district. and i got a lot of signatures, people supporting my idea, and i am hoping everything is fine. >> yeah thanks for all the good

work on this mr. hannah. thank you. now a support from the alu . >> inspector keller from the alcohol liaison unit san francisco police department. f.m. smokes and wines filed an application with california alcohol and beverage control seeking type 21 off sale general for 57 new montgomery street located on the west side of new montgomery. there was two police calls for service from july 2011 to july 2012. zero police reports. this premise is located in plot 212. the plot had 578 police incidented recorded for 2011. applicant premises is located in a high

crime area. this premise is located in track listed. applicant premise is currently located in undue concentration area. there is zero recorded letters of protest and zero recorded letters of support. southern stage police station does approve this license with some recommended conditions. the alu unit does recommend approval. the following conditions have been recommended to the california department of alcohol beverage control. number one sales and service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. midnight each day of the week. no distilled spirits are sold in bottles or containers smaller thran 375-milliliters. no wine sold with alcoholic content

greater than 15% by volume. no malt beverage shall be sold with alcohol content greater than 5.7% by volume. no noise audible under the area under control of the licensee. loitering is defined to stand idle about without lawful business is prohibited on sidewalks or property adjacent to the premise under the control of the licensee as depicted on the abc27 which is dated october 19, 2012. there shall be no cups, glasses, or similar things used for drinking of beverages sold, or given away at the premise and quantities less than 24 in the original multi-package. all ice shall be sold at about or above prevailing prices in the area and less than 3 pounds per sale

shall be given away free. no person under 21 shall sell or deliver alcohol beverages. on march 8 of 2013sahala h anna was contacted with the recommended conditions. >> thank you inspector. if there are no other reports -- oh supervisor yee. >> i just wanted -- my comment is i am really glad the owner had paid attention to what we had wanted and did the necessary outreach. it looks like he did plenty of outreach and took it very seriously and it's one of the things that the committee members in this committee values that kind of outreach, in particular speaking to the supervisor of that district, so

i will be supporting the recommendation. >> thank you. let's open this up for public comment. anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. i also have a note from supervisor kim's office where this business operates that there seems to be support and i appreciate mr. h anna's effort to reach out to the community as well so if there are no other comments colleagues can we move this forward with positive recommendation without objection? thank you. >> thank you everyone. mr. evans please call number three. >> item number three is a hearing to consider the transfer of a type one off sale general license from address fow to 500 laguna street for krista avery and manuel bargiela for o camino

dba nosa ria. >> is ms. avery or mr. bargiela here from the business? >> i'm going to put this jump drive in quickly. some pictures. i am krista avery. thank you for your time. manuel couldn't be here today. he is employed with a local company as a director of information of technology so he couldn't join me but i will speak on our behalf. are you able to see those pictures? >> yes. >> okay. it will just go through a slide show of pictures of the store. the first picture was manuel and there he is in the store front but i will let these go through as i speak if that is okay. if you would like me to stop it please let me know. so to introduce myself

and manuel. i have lived in san francisco 15 years and manuel 13. we reside in glen park where we have our home for five years and i spent -- i started my career in san francisco with pricewaterhouse and the past 10 years i spent as a director -- well, in various positions and the most recent as the director of corporate finance at leafy straws and company. manuel is a director of technology with a local company. we decided to open nosa ria market and opened to a warm welcome from the area and neighbors and merchants alike and we are the only store in san francisco that specialized in foods and items all import friday spain. manuel is from spain. >> >> his family is still there and

we saw this as a unique opportunity to open a market to provide san francisco with foods and we hope wine from spain. so we have a very unique selection of cured meats and cheeses and oils, vinegars, spices, sweets, et cetera. we would very much like to complement this selection with very well curated small selection of wines, sherries, andicidears all from spain, so our customers have expressed very enthusiastic demand for some of the wines and sherries andicidears. they're difficult to find in san francisco and we very much believe it will bring people to san francisco and hayes valley. i will stop this for a second, so we see that it's going to be

a factor that will draw people as i said to the community. we did quite a bit of community out reach. in the file hopefully you have been able to see we have letters of support from richard pressel who is the president of the merchant's association and a long time resident of hayes valley. we have a letter of support from larry kronehander who is a board member of the negotiation association. we have a letter of support from dr. steven hurtman who is a long time resident of hayes valley and we have a letter of support also from supervisor breed's office. we also countless numbers of customers who remind me that they're very anxious for us to be able to provide them with well curated selection of wines and sherries from spain, so that

is -- that's the community outreach that we have done, and that ends my presentation. thank you. >> thank you ms. avery. now from the alu. >> good morning. i am inspector [inaudible] from the san francisco police department. nosa ria filed a application with california alcohol beverage and control, abc seeking a type 21 for 500 laguna street. this location is located at plot 558 and it is located in a high crime area. this location is also located in census track 615 and located in an undue concentrated area. abc recorded one letter of protest and zero letter of support by abc. alu

would recommend approval with the following condition. the one sales service and consumption of alcohol beverage shall be permitted between 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. each day of the week. no noise is audible and as depicted on abc form 257. loitering is prohibited on any sidewalk or property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee as depicted on the abc form 257 data, 2012. the exterior of the premise shall be lighting of sufficient power to eliminate and questionable appearance of all persons on or above the premises. in addition the

lights shall not disturb the privacy of any neighboring residents. no person under the age of 21 shall sell or deliver alcoholic beverages. size smaller than 200-milliliters is prohibited. no sales of malt beverages and wine coolers and beers of less than 16-ounce can't be sold in single containers and sold in pre-packaged multi-unit quantities. no wine shall be sold with alcoholic content greater than 15% by volume except for dinner wines which have been aged two years or more. wines shall not be sold in bottles or containers smaller than 750-milliliter. the petitioner shall utilize the

electronic equipment to monitor the outside of the premises and all entrances and exits and recorded. the surveillance shall be operated during the open hours and kept at least 30 days and made available to the department or the police department upon demand. one note on march 20, 2013 julian [inaudible] was contacted and stated she agreed with the conditions. thank you. >> thank you inspector. supervisor wiener. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for the presentation. just first one thing to clarify and i have some questions. it indicates that there were no letters of support recorded with abc and one protest but of course in our package here we have -- i don't see letters again. i see letters in favor

including from the neighborhood association, so there are quite a few letters of support in the packet. is that right? >> we did not receive the support. perhaps they didn't support it to abc. >> okay. >> that's what i guess. >> they're in our board packet today which is the packet i think comes from alu. anyway i just went through and there are quite a few positive letters of support including from the hayes valley neighborhood association and supervisor breed and no letters of opposition. so i want to just raise an issue and i actually raise this related to a couple of liquor license this past tuesday at our full board meeting and that has to do with condition 11. condition 11 as you just read requires the establishment to utilize electronic surveillance and recording equipment for all entrances and exits. it

requires that that recording equipment be "actively monitored" which would presumably require someone there all day to watch it and kept for at least 30 days and made able to the police department upon demand, and as i understand that this is particular condition department has recommended it in quite a few liquor license around the city and i have concerns about this condition. i'm not philosophically opposed to electronic recording and i think that can be very helpful in some areas, in fact i requested in some areas in my district that the property owner put it up in a problematic area and there are merchants it's in

their interest to have it and i understand the cameras can help the police solve crimes and i am not fis sofically opposed to surveillance but two years ago the police department came forward with a proposal to require surveillance of all bars and clubs or liquor establishments in the city as well as a requirement that bars and clubs scan the id's of anyone entering and maintain that as well to make it available to the police department, and i and others expressed opposition to that proposal and the police department i thought had backed away from it, and so i learned recently that the department has been inserting this condition, and there's been no public process around that condition, no discussion about whether we think it's a good thing or a bad thing. no discussion whether about it should be limited to bars or clubs that have a problem history as opposed to a

spanish specialty food store that is going to be selling wines and sherries and cidars in the store and strikes me this is a city wide policy discussion whether we think this is good or bad or should be in a different forum and i am frankly not even taking a position whether this should exist in some form. it maybe perfectly appropriate. i have an issue with the police department having at some point starting inserting this on its own apparently without that broader policy discussion so -- and again this applicant in particular -- you know, i don't -- it's a pretty significant thing to mandate that a private business owner put up a surveillance camera and to say that this establishment which seems the exact opposite of some

rowdy night club or bar where people are going in and getting drunk and really bad things are happening. this is a specialty grocery store that is asking to sell imported wines from spain providing a great service to the neighborhood and we're being asked to mandate that they put up this surveillance camera that they have to actively monitor, that they have to keep for 30 days, maybe available to the police on request without even a warrant and i don't support that, and i know that this is -- i did mention this to the chief yesterday and i'm not asking you to defend the department's policies, and this is probably at a different level of the department in terms of setting up policy, but i do have serious concerns about this, so mr. chairman i am very supportive of this license. i do -- i will

be intending to make a motion that when we forward this it's with condition 11 removed. >> thank you. and i think a broader discussion of electronic surveillance requirements would be really important for this committee at some time in the future as well, but thank you for the presentation. with no other questions let's open this up for public comment. anyone from the public that would like to speak? and we have conner johnson from supervisor breed's office. >> yes. as krista mentioned supervisor breed is supportive of this application. this business contributes to the unique feel of the valley and she is highly supportive and i want to thank supervisor wiener about the letters of support and i am wondering the same thing. we wrote a letter of support as well as as the neighborhood associations and we fully support the application. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone else from the public that would

like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. so colleagues is there a motion on this item? supervisor wiener. >> yeah, i move to forward this to the board with a positive recommendation and removal of condition number 11, and i understand just to be clear from the deputy city attorney that these conditions are recommendations to the abc, but when the board adopts a resolution on a liquor license i imagine we can do it with a statement that we don't want that particular condition? >> deputy city attorney john gibner. the ultimate authority is to say yes or no, this license serves the public necessity and convenience or it doesn't bu