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 and

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 move forward from there and that is the five main points, any questions? >> do we have any commissioner questions? >> i just want to note that the legislation and policy committee heard this on june 24th and recommended approval. >> commissioner o'brien? >> i just one question, you are relaxing to get the smaller sized businesses an opportunity to be able to sell the beer and wine because right now, thesed

kind of bias to the bigger ones and i like that idea. that raises the possibility that we will have the liquor stores popping up that i don't find appealing, is that a potential consequence? >> that is a good question. it is actually by license. and a liquor store is entirely different animal here, a grocery store, sells in the definition between this is a liquor store can have unlimited amount of alcohol and serve other food in there. a grocery store only will have 15 percent of their floor space and this will only be beer and wine. and we all heard loud and clear in both of our offices are not looking to include more liquor stores into the mission at this point. so that is not a concern. >> no. >> not the kind of liquor store that you go to. >> any other comments?

>> commissioner dooley? >> i just wanted to say about the conditional use thing i think that is very positive. i come from north beach, where we faced having so many restaurants that they were crowding out retail, which had the unintended effect of making daytime retail really decline. and so, i commend you for that. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i just wanted to... go ahead. >> is there any... now that you have done substantial out reach, is there anything in the present form that is contentious with any of the groups that you were working with? or have you figured out a way to navigate all of that? >> shockingly not, i feel like this is not everyone is thrilled, but everyone can live with this and you know, we are really helping business and all types of business. >> where was the most difficult

compromise in your five points? >> allowing the transfer of the bars and liquor stores. >> but you are contention is that this allows the redistribution. so that it is good for the fabric of the neighborhood. >> exactly. >> and i would like to say, too. i do know supervisor campos's office and supervisor weiner's office they did a lot of out reach. and on both sides of the street where they were even doing out reach up to you know doloris and on the side streets like 18th and 19th. 17th and 16th street. i was really impressed and you said it earlier in the comments you had a lot of community meetings and i do know for a fact that you had a lot of community meetings and you had a lot of residents show up. both business and otherwise, and i do know, speaking with both of mission merchants and the valencia street corridor

merchants that they all felt that this legislation is very, very fair. and all the way around especially on and i know that the moratorium was very contentious and everybody came to an agreement on that. and so this is one thing where everybody came together and you worked a long time and i know that we have been hearing about it in the last years, the out reach on both sides was great and so i commend you for that. >> commissioner riley? >> the legislation and committee meeting you shared with us a list of organizations that you have met with and maybe you want to share that with the commission. >> i did not bring that list with me, i apologize. but the majority of the merchant groups that we met with, 24th street, and lower 24th street merchants, valencia street. >> mission creek? >> i think kind of missed the boat.

they formed a little bit after we had finalized the legislation. >> commissioner, i did actually reach out to mission creek and provided them with the legislation and did have a conversation with them. and they are generally supportive, although they did not take an official position. >> as well as other neighborhood groups, like nuta and people that do work within the mission. >> commissioner dwight? >> not raining on everybody's parade today i would like to move that we support this. >> public comment. >> okay. >> do we have public comment if we have no other commissioner comments? do we have public comment on item number five? >> we have one. >> commissioners, rob black, from the restaurant association and i will keep it brief because the hour is late. i do want to commend both supervisor campos's office and supervisor weiner's office for doing significant out reach and work on this you. and i think that they took a very contentious conversation

around moratorium and took it to a very different place and i think that was appreciated from the business community and particularly from the restaurant community. and but what i will say is&it goes to an earlier conversation around the idea of regulation, what you saw was a unique experiment that was done by the planning department to eliminate conditional use requirements around what businesses could go into that location. to see what would happen. and many of you remember it 15 years ago it is very different today than what it was then, the safety and all of those sorts of things. and loosening those regulations made a huge difference in the investment from the business community into that neighborhood. not to say that we should not also balance the uses within that context, so that there is good neighborhood serving retail during the day and all of those sort of things. i think that it is something to

remember back whenever new regulations come forward that restrict investment. the street is a great example of when you take those restrictions away you can really, really spur the investment and spur the dramatic and positive change in a neighborhood. and so, i just wanted to point that out that in this legislation is trying to reach that balance to try to figure out the way to keep that good uses throughout the time. and so that, it should not always take it all of the way. but opening up that opportunity and does have some really tangible benefits thank you very much for your work tonight and on a variety of issues, you served the city well. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners do we have a motion? >> a second. >> we need to make the motion. >> in spite of the fact that i am also tend to be propremarket

and anti-regulation, i think that the conditional use does provide the community with the ability to kind of wade in on their fate. and so with that said, i move that we support this legislation, as it has been presented this evening. >> okay. >> i will second, again. >> okay, roll call? >> commissioners? i have a motion by commissioner dwight to recommend approval of 130459. commission of alcoholic beverage on valencia street. s and seconded by yee riley. >> adams? >> aye. >> dooley? >> aye. >> dwight. >> yes. >> o'brien. >> yes. >> ortiz-cartagena. >> yes. >> white. >> absent. >> and commissioner yee riley? >> aye. >> that motion passes 6-0. >> great. >> thank you. >> thank you for your patience tonight. >> and thank you, next.

>> next item? >> commissioners item 6, director's report? >> commissioners, since today is my first day back from vacation, and spending most of the day getting caught up i do not have a report for you tonight. >> thank you. >> next israel item please? >> legislation report? >> nothing. >> item eight, president's report. >> nothing to report. >> item 9. >> vice president. >> not here. >> ten. >> commissioner reports >> do we have any reports? seeing none, next item >> 11 general public comment. >> would any members of the public who would like to make a comment on any future meetings? >> seeing none, the public

comment is closed >> 12 new business. >> seeing none, next item. >> item 13, is there a motion to adjourn? >> i move. >> second. >> i third. >> i second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. meeting adjourned. thank you, everyone. >> i have 2 job titles.

i'm manager of the tour program as well as i am the historyian of city hall. this building is multifaceted to say the very least it's a municipal building that operates the city and county of san francisco. this building was a dream that became a reality of a man by the name of james junior elected mayor of san francisco in 1912. he didn't have a city hall because it was destroyed in the earth wake of 1906. construction began in april of 1913. in december 1915, the building was complete. it opened it's doors in january 1916. >> it's a wonderful experience to come to a building built like

this. the building is built as a palace. not for a king or queen. it's built for all people. this building is beautiful art. those are architecture at the time when city hall was built, san francisco had an enormous french population. therefore building a palace in the art tradition is not unusual. >> jimmie was an incredible individual he knew that san frcisco had to regain it's place in the world. he decided to have the tallest dome built in the united states. it's now stands 307 feet 6

inches from the ground 40 feet taller than the united states capital. >> you could spend days going around the building and finding something new. the embellishment, the carvings, it represents commerce, navigation, all of the things that san francisco is famous for. >> the wood you see in the board of supervisor's chambers is oak and all hand carved on site. interesting thing about the oak is there isn't anymore in the entire world. the floors in china was cleard and never replanted. if you look up at the seceiling

you would believe that's hand kof carved out of wood and it is a cast plaster sealing and the only spanish design in an arts building. there are no records about how many people worked on this building. the workman who worked on this building did not all speak the same language. and what happened was the person working next to the other person respected a skill a skill that was so wonderful that we have this masterpiece to show the world today.

(clapping) >> are you a parents that's unemployed and struggling to pay child support we have teamed up and positions ourself to offer an opportunity for permanent employment. for more information