whether it be flexible schedules or bring your dog to work or having gourmet food to work or whatever it might be. there are benefits and they vary by company as competitive tools to try to attract the young employees and families and employees as old as i am. but, i find it difficult to get my head around passing a law to validate something that we already do. because i think that laws beget all sorts of unintended consequences i think that it sets a precedent for just creating more laws, laws upon laws, and laws, in our society have a down side, as well as an upside. and we are in a extraordinary letigus society and this will come with a certain cost and i don't think that you can't say that it will come with a cost

but to say that it is going to make san francisco more attractive is a read herring, we are an attractive place to be and we are moving it every day and our economy improves daily and people want to come here and companies want to locate here and the employees are demanding that they want to be in the city now and not in the suburbs at least some of the young ones and i think that the flights of the suburbs is a natural flight and sometimes, it is a temporary one for raising children and people want to have a yard where they can have the kids who want to run around and have a fence and want to live in the apartments and that is typically not a characteristic of housing in the city. it is just not. it is vertical and not horizontal and i think that some of those things just are natural. it is not about whether we are friendly or hostile. it is about we are different. and we are different at different phases of life. and so, i just don't feel that passing a law to assert something that we are already

well known for is really necessary. i think that is much of the opposition. again, i don't think that anyone here has argued with the sentiment and with the spirit of the proposal. so, that is kind of about it. i mean, everyone seems to are unanimous and one thing that is troubling is the speed at which it progressed and it has been progressed and sort of the process from here on out and the idea that it will get forced on the ballot regardless. and that there is just going to happen and i think that we feel that we are being the small businesses, the businesses in general are being characterized as somehow not family-friendly by the mere marketing, of this proposal. and that, i think, is offensive to many of us.

because we are very family friendly, we are just people friendly. that is san francisco, that is our heritage and many different dimensions not just business. so here we are. tonight, with a sort of litany of proposed changes that we hope that you will consider and kind of an impass as not knowing how to proceed from here. and whether some of these suggestions will be implemented, and whether the process is going to become a little more or a little less kie on chaotic and a little more tempered and so i am at a loss as to what kind of a motion to make. >> commissioner o'brien? >> i am reminded of probably two years ago, supervisor campos came before us with

proposal and legislation and forgive me for not remembering the exact specifics but there is a lot, commonality with that and it was unanimously rejected by the commission from both sides, people progressive and people that are conservative or moderate. and it was about implementing for the small few employers that did not implement some program and the question was asked that how many of the bad people are you trying to tackling here and you can see that most of the people are good and it is not going to impact anybody because most of the people are good and so it kind of regards to the logic and it is just a few bad apples and you can't legislate to deal with a few bad apples and president chiu, this is kind of reminding me of that discussion, the way that i see it, going down, frankly, and discuss in the terms of which

way the legislation is going to go. and i am not crazy, about the idea of give me some amendments, feed me the amendments about because i think that there is some fundamental issues with the idea in the first place, i mean that there are questions about the requirement of it. is it something that is needed? how many bad people do we have? i mean, it sounds like you have conversed with some people that have convinced you that this is legislation that is needed. and qualified by saying, you know, most of the people are gooded people, we like to just cotify this and just put something on the ballot. and i am kind of saying that it is a moderate proposal and not convinced that this is moderate and i know as a person who runs a small business, every time that i have to deal with an

issue, it burns up band width on my day to when i work to go to work and go home, it is not going to be light or moderate, i think that it is going to be serious. it is very hard to make it happen any other way. and i want to work with people that are, you know, i want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, but i am kind of with my fellow commissioner dwight here, and i don't know, we like to, and we never like to throw something out and throw it back at somebody and say forget it. we never like to and we try to get everybody to come in on unumbrella and we work really hard, we are almost like a jury and we try to get everybody behind something, and we are clearly struggling with this one. that is really wearing me a lot. and i am like martha and i am kind of, we are, how do i get to find something that is allowing the process forward,

to the amendments and the amendments not as crazy. and i think that the legislative process might be a better way to go and that might come up worse who knows. but at least it gives it the chance of there is more time for this to weigh in and more, and the idea of the public has to get into to involved in the ballot measure and i am not convinced by that argument. and i do agree that the people that leave in the business sf san francisco and that does not impress me any more when there is a development, when there is going to be parking and a lot to the community and i am never convinced by that, i believe that the business will still be? san francisco, but there could be a price to be paid that we don't know about the people who make that decision to leave, so i don't think that it is going to kill the economy but it would be in spite of it. i will stop there. >> commissioner dooley? >> supervisor chiu?

what would you be interesting from us in terms of do you want us to give you our long list of amendments? >> you know, whatever the commissioner would like to do, i know that the hour is late and a lot of folks are waiting this evening. i am happy to receive that feedback f one of the things that you want to do is direct the staff to gather the feedback that is a different option than trying to hash the different issues. i had run down a number of issues that i had heard to be addressed around predictbility and family definition and economy issues, we will be looking at all of that. i think that i have a sense of what the issues are. but this matter is in your hands. >> how much time do we have you know, in terms of if we want to with the business community go through all of these amendment and make the changes and i am trying to figure if there is a time frame.

>> i will tell you that i am planning to introduce a raft of amendments at our committee on thursday. they will sit in committee for another meeting or more, depend og where that legislation goes, and we are having the first hearing and this coming thursday, and i would like to be able to incorporate good feedback from this commission and others. and in the coming days, by thursday. and then, of course, you know, after that, we will continue the conversation, but, i will also say that while we have been doing a lot of... i mean the fact of the matter is that over the past month we have done a tremendous amount of work and we have taken more meetings and given feedback and trying to find it in the last month and any single piece of legislation that i have carried with this year and i am continuing to do that and i have had a conversations with a number of you and business leaders and small business leaders here in this room and

beyond. and we will continue to do that in the coming days. >> commissioner dwight? >> i just want to say, when we leave this room that i have been a support of you, and i acknowledge and appreciate and applaud all that you have done on behalf of business but on behalf of sound government in san francisco and goodness knows that we have needed some adults in the city hall. and you were definitely one of those people who have good, sound, thinking. this is where, i think that some of us have sort of our cognitive dissonance is that despite all of that, this one we don't feel, is in the same, is in the same realm. and that is why we are struggling. >> the fact of the matter, that we all see this issue in the different ways and i just personally had hundreds of conversations with employees who struggle every day in this city, and now they may not work for your company and they may

not feel comfortable bringing it up with companies that you are a part of. for whatever reason, the situation exists and so, we may have a little bit of a discriminate on the need for it and i do feel that it is important for us to say that with the legislation or about the measure that we need to do something in this area and this is not an issue that i am going to back off on. but i am more than willing to take the feedback on how we take a step in the right direction to try to address what i see, and i think that most folks see asen issue. and by the way, we do appreciate by the way for the comments on that and i have the honor of working with many of you on the issues that we agree are sound policy for san francisco. >> we are having the conversation, thank you. >> director? >> just to provide you maybe with a little bit of options on direction. you may not want to make a formal, you know, recommend not

recommend, because you know, the legislation is still being worked on. you could provide a list of that has already been discussed by you have whether the concerns, and ad this point, why you may not support it. and you have heard direct comments from the business community on things that they specifically would like to see addressed being, you know, i think, striking, language around the predictable work environment. and the definition of family, the number threshold, how, when a change is made to the legislation, that there is two different requirements between the employee and the employer. so, you could provide some direction, and in terms of

listing some of the specific concerns that the business community has brought to you, without giving a formal recommendation one way or the other and so i am not sure if i am making myself clear. but i think, for, the supervisor, and to provide this will be in committee, and to provide any direction or comment to other supervisors that are in the committee in terms of what this commission thinks. and in terms of the legislation and where it is now and then also, providing, direction to the board of supervisors, on what is clearly has been expressed from the small business community here tonight. >> if that makes sense? >> commissioner dwight? >> yeah, i think that we are sort of duty bound to state our position and we do that in the form of a motion so that we can

express our position and see if we can, and you can gauge how we all come down on that and i think that if there is a motion to be made then i would move, i move, that we have expressed that we do not support the legislation or the ordinance as presently drafted. and that we request, a number of changes which i would rather not have to enmerate in the motion but they come from us and other con stit entcies of yours and that we will reconsider this ordinance after we see the amended document. >> i think that given the sentiment, that probably captures. >> i might have done something different if i were on the commission but i understand it.

>> i would like to see the reference to the possibility that you said that you consider going to the legislative route as opposed to a ballot initiative? could we just ask that that be considered? >> and and as part of the motion that we express our preference, that this and through the process and not through the ballot process. period. >> i feel that the concerns that are raised are equally aimed at about measure or a piece of legislation and i understand that it has a slightly different process, but i would like to just have a little bit more of a sense of if you are saying the legislative route it really makes a difference, does that mean, i am not sure if that

means, commissioner dwight, that you would end up supporting this at some point. >> i think that the legislative process makes a huge difference and i think that it, i don't think that... i just don't see that the legislative process verses the about process and either one preempts having or even prefers having a public discussion. and i think that we are benefit by having a longer public dialogue in the form of editorial and the terms of the public and we could have a discussion. and it is an interesting issue and one that has been dealt with in other country and one that has attention at our federal level and one that we think are a stand up city, and when it comes to this. and so, maybe it is a celebration, can begin with the public dialogue that will

happen through you taking this through the legislative process rather than the ballot process. i for one would be more supportive if we have that process. >> go ahead. >> president, i wonder if we should instruct the staff to capture all of this suggestions? key suggestions tonight? and forward that to supervisor chiu? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> commissioner o'brien? >> i just want to and i think that it is a fair question, president chiu asked, so for me, fundamentally i worry about the case of city government, regulating how businesses operate, i mean, i will be honest with you i start out with that because, as all things be neutral, i prefer for the businesses to make their decisions to be good, corporate citizens as much as possible and i know that there has to be laws. that said, if i believe in my

heart, that i could be convinced if i were to witness a fully engaged dialogue through the legislative process and i listened to the likes of supervisor weiner or supervisor campos and others all hearing this out and then other people having an opportunity to weigh in to it and there was not the rushed feel that maybe i could get behind it. so, that would be my answer to that question about going through that legislative process, it would make a difference for me. >> do we have a motion and do we have a second? >> can chris read the motion back? >> i did have one, and i will read the first part and i have a question. part of the motion that i have from commissioner dwight was do not support as presently drafted requesting the number of changes and we will

considering the following amendments and preference through the legislative process. now, i believe that commissioner yee riley. and requested the motion that staff compiled the key amendments from the business community and incorporate in the response and do you want to make that part of the motion? >> i think that is yes, if you need to make it specific, that is fine. >> i just want to make sure that is captured. >> i just want to be sure. >> my desire to have the supervisor's office consider the changes that have been recommend and if we want to include in the motion that our staff that the office of small business staff enumerate those that is fine. directors does that work for you? >> yes, it does. but, i'm not sure, i mean, it does to a point. but i'm not sure if it captures the current sort of discussion that is happening, around the ballot measure verses the legislation. >> i don't know how we will do

that other than to ask president chiu and he said earlier that he would be willing to consider that right. and so, beyond, making the recommendation, that he would give preference to that and i think that is a better way to go based on the amount of time that i have, right now i feel a bias towards that and i would like to see the recommendation to try to consider that. >> one step that you can take is taking a vote on this particular motion and then doing a second motion saying that the commission would prefer that this the ordinance would be done, that it is preference is that it would be done through the legislative process as opposed to the ballot. >> so you don't have to have just one motion, that accompanies everything, you can have multiple motions that combine different components. >> that i think is good because i think that we are dealing

right now with you know, supervisor chiu, may go ahead and put this on the ballot. so i think that we need to at least weigh in ourselves the business community on the amendments. if that is going to be the case. i think that we need to put them down, and have the staff put that together. and we could also recommend that we prefer a legislative approach. commissioner dwight? >> i am fine with having two different motions, that is part of the fine country's process. and so i will restate my first motion and i will let someone else make the second motion. >> my motion is that we do not approve the legislation as written, that we submit to the supervisor's office, a package of proposed changes that are prepared by staff after this session and compiling the changes recommended by the business community that we heard tonight and ourselves and in the paperwork that we have

here. and that we reconsider the ordinance, after those or whatever changes the supervisor sees fit to make or made. >> do you have a second? >> and then... we will be formally reconsidered on the 22nd, like for the formally reasons? we are not going to set a date? >> okay. >> as that seconded? was there a second? >> second. >> commissioner o'brien? >> do we need to take a vote on that? >> i wanted to speak to the motion the second motion. would you like to take the first motion? >> yes. >> take a vote on the first motion to reiterate, do not approve as presently drafted and request a number of changes, staff will compile the key recommended amendments and appropriate into the official response, seconded by dooley.

and on that motion, adams? >> aye. >> dooley? >> aye. >> dwight. >> aye. >> osama o'brien. >> aye. ortiz. >> aye. >> ortiz-cartagena. >> i would like to ask a motion that we will ask president chiu to forward this through the legislative process as opposed to a ballot initiative. >> i second. >> roll call? >> repeat the roll call? >> >> i have a motion by commissioner o'brien to consider forwarding the request that the supervisor consider forwarding this to the legislative process verses the ballot measure, and that was

seconded by commissioner dwight. >> on that motion, adams? >> yes. >> dooley? >> yes. >> dwight. >> yes. >> o'brien. >> yes. >> ortiz-cartagena. >> yes. >> white. >> yes. >> white. >> yee riley. >> yes. >> that passes seven to 0. >> thank you, everybody for your time tonight. >> next item, please? >> this places you on item five, discussion of a possible action to make the recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 1 30459 planning code, mission alcoholic beverage special use district in the valencia street neighborhood commercial transit district. ordinance amending the planning code, mission of alcoholic

beverage special use district crols to allow the transfer of liquor licenses under the specified circumstances to restrict the sale of alcohol for off sight consumption and to exempt grocery stores and certain insurance taoul arts and other uses from the controls. establishing the operating conditions folic or relate td use and amending the neighborhood commercial transit controls to restrict the conversion of existing ground floor retail use of restaurant and making environmental finding, documents as the file number 1 30459 rntion and we have a presentation by nate allbee legislative aid to campos. >> and thank you, and you are a trooper. >> good evening, commissioners, i know that we are tired and i will keep this sisync. >> and this legislation was actually co-written by our office as well as the office of supervisor weiner and just a background on the mission. alcohol and special use district was established in the early 90s to control the

proliferation of and the cluster of the businesses serving the alcohol in the area. it covers all of the mission and the neighborhood as well. and it is pretty much remained, unchanged for the past 17 years, since both supervisor weiner and campos have been in office we have received a lot of calls from the community leaders and business leaders asking us to update that to reflect more of the current needs of the mission than what was going on in the early 90s. >> so we have had over a year of community and stake holder meetings, and more meetings than our office has had and we have come up with a compromise to address the needs of the neighbors and the groups that were involved in the original legislation and as well as the business owners, the proposed changes update and allow the new community based entrepreneurship to come in and continue to regulate the alcohol in the district. five key points to the

legislation. we are allowing of the neighborhood grocery stores ar load to sell a limited amount of beer and wine, so in keeping with the current policy to discourage that favors only the large chain grocery stores and currently they are only allowed to sell the beer and wine and spirits and small stores to serve beer and wine and better serve the neighborhood and better so they can remain economically viable and compete with these larger grocery stores, beer and wine sales are limited to 15 percent of the grocery floor space and have a type 20 license and also be subject to a hearing at an approval by the planning commission. >> second, change we want to encourage and allow current business owners in the district to make repairs and become ada compliance and so under the current rules the businesses

can be closed for 30 days before it loses its liquor license and this discourages them from making the renovation and leads to deter ating store and restaurant infrainstruct stur. under the proposed controls that the business owners be allowed to make the improvements and comply with the law and be allowed to do that in 120 days for renovation without losing the authorization to operate. and then the this is the big one, we are allowing the transfer of the liquor licenses in the district. the passage of the original stg and froes all bars and liquor stores into the next locations and unfortunately a lot of those stores and licenses were on the main commercial corridors and were concentrated in these areas. so the stores that over time came located or problematic for the neighborhood and could not, sell their licenses to move to

a different location because the license was fixed and attached to the current location that it was in. so the new controls were allow for the license to transfer to a new location in the sud and it prohibts new licenses from entering the mission. >> we allow physical expansion of the current bars holding the licenses to the properties or areas that were not covered by the license and means that if you are a bar that is doing well, you can buy the space next to you and the storefront and then, move your liquor license to have it cover both your current storefront and the future storefront. it also, there are certain bars that didn't include their patios or other spaces during the 1990s, into the liquor license and so they have been using patieos that they cannot use and we are allowing them to serve them if they apply for that and we are adding conditional use hearings for the type 47 licenses which is

full service restaurants and this is only for restaurants that are moving into spaces that were previously occupied by retail within a three-year period and that is only for valencia street and so over the last year or so, we have been hearing a lot from the merchant groups about what they view as a lot of restaurants moving into the street and that there has been a deteration of retail space because of those restaurants moving in. the original discussion that we were having that they brought to us was to put a moratorium on the restaurants on the street and after, meeting with bar owners and retail owners we released and restaurant owners, we really felt that there are unintended consequences to that. and so, instead, the conditional use will look like i am a restaurant, and moving into the area, and i am moving to something that was previously retail. and i have to go to planning and the neighborhood gets to weigh in about the public convenience and the necessity of that restaurant moving into a formal retail space and mo