was stated. >> maybe one or two 2 pages of explanation? >> yeah. i agree. >> okay. so i would suggest briefing due the thursday the prior. you want to have an opportunity for the appellant to submit a response brief. if you stick to just exhibits? >> i think exhibits are fine actually. >> okay. okay the motion is to continue the appeal to provide information for the safety of the alternate location and this additional information is limited to exhibits, not argument, not written argument. okay. >> are you seeking confirmation?

>> yes. seeking confirmation of statements regarding the soil condition and the location. >> as opposed to additional argument about the safety, right? >> right. >> mr. pacheco, when you are ready. >> the motion is xr from commissioner honda to continue this matter to july 2nd. public hearing has been held to submit additional information pursuant to the boards comments all due one thursday prior, exhibits only. three votes are needed to continue this. commissioner fung, no, commissioner hwang,

yes, vice-president hurtado? aye. lapis lazarus, the vote is 3-2. this matter is continued to july second. 2nd. thank you. >> okay. item 9 has been continued to june 11th. >> we are going to take a five 5-minute break. okay. >> welcome to the june 6, 2014, meechlg we are on appeal no. 10. item 10: patricia vaughey, appellanttss vs. zoning administrator, respondent 2145 market st., 2141 chestnut st., 2050 irving st., 1301 franklin st., 498 & 1333 castro st., 3201 divisadero st., 1344 stockton st., 33 drumm st., 670 4th st., and 1524 & 2120 polk st. appealing the issuance on march 26, 2014, to walgreens, letter of determination regarding a request for the current zoning designation of various properties and whether a conditional use cuu permit would be required to sell beer, wine

and spiritss. for hearing today10. item 10: patricia vaughey, appellanttss vs. zoning administrator, respondent 2145 market st., 2141 chestnut st., 2050 irving st., 1301 franklin st., 498 & 1333 castro st., 3201 divisadero st., 1344 stockton st., 33 drumm st., 670 4th st., and 1524 & 2120 polk st. appealing the issuance on march 26, 2014, to walgreens, letter of determination regarding a request for the current zoning designation of various properties and whether a conditional use cuu permit would be required to sell beer, wine and spiritss. for hearing today 10. item 10: patricia vaughey, appellanttss vs. zoning administrator, respondent 2145 market st., 2141 chestnut st., 2050 irving st., 1301 franklin st., 498 & 1333 castro st., 3201 divisadero st., 1344 stockton st., 33 drumm st., 670 4th st., and 1524 & 2120 polk st. appealing the issuance on march 26, 2014, to walgreens, letter of determination regarding a request for the current zoning designation of various properties and whether a conditional use cuu permit would be required to sell beer, wine and spiritss. for hearing today >> 1234 we will start with the appellant. >> this is an unusual case i bring to you. i appeal the decision because it simply did not address the issues and excluded the information requested by wallgreens. mr.

sanchez's determination is applaud -- flawed and has errors. wallgreens determination and health and safety is a request. they only answered, they did not answer eight of those addresses in this interpretation determinatio the rest were and they are the two in chestnut and lombardy. the two in drum and 1301-franklin. the people in the other neighborhoods are concerned for cause they feel there wasn't a determination even though there may be sng -- smlg something in place. since it stated that 3201 divisadero and franklin that no alcohol is loud doctor -- allowed. this must be clarified. it states that the zoning administrator in it's letter identified the ability of the code of the provisions of the planning code. mr. sanchez suggest his job decide whether it's appropriate

letters typically are more complex and require further research from the planning department. his letter simply did not cover existing unusual circumstances at these locations. at 2141 divisadero nc p and 2141 chestnut street overlap in our adjacent to highway 101 which is very interesting. sales within the area and it does not mention the issuance of necessity and subordinate of uses in this determination. the determination did not address that small inthiesz -- businesses should be preserved. it was mentioned in the letter overlapping districts. seven alcohol

retail sales within four 4 blocks and divisadero and three very close to the 214111 restaurants that sell beer and wine and liquor. it did not mention the problems of the bridge hotel next to 3201 chestnut. there is an affordable housing for risk use being built now one 1 block away. both applicants are in the marina. there is no mention that nc 3 and two districts and some of the blocks there are only 1 house difference between the directs. all of this was done according to the job of the planning department with the exhibit 3. all this was not done according to job. the letter of determination did not address the 15 percent square footage of the accessory use. it stated that

it did not address the size of the formula retail versus a liquor store. 15 page did not state the percentage must be designated and cannot be changed unless it's brought back to the planning department. the necessity of incidental and subordinate use alcohol is never, is anyone of these three character. wallgreens is a drugstore with an accessory use already of drugstore with accessory use of groceries and this would be a subordinate use on accessories use existing use. this would, you would have to change the code. 703.2c v 6 in order for this to be -- it's

right here in the determination. accessory use for alcohol must have a conditional use for conditions of hours, operations, hours of operation, size of the accessory use. loitering health and issues must be addressed. some of these issues mentioned are the location near. wallgreens replied by an attorney appears not to address the zoning. mostly address abc code. it has left you to believe that there are no alcohol stores in the area. yet, 3201 divisadero from the nearest small owned business. retail liquor store. and chestnut street is also 75 feet from wallgreens. now, i want to go

back in this and discuss why we want a hearing. if they are to come in, we want to have the right to be able to say what "the hours" are and ask what they are. we want the right to know what the square footage is and it can't be changed intimately in the way of having us go with a large corporation. we want the right to be able to preserve our existing businesses and not have complex. we can work with ball green's and not have conflicting companies competing against each other which would give the smaller businesses not a fair use. i'm befuddled. they said you can have hearings at the abc. abc wants to do as many as they can and they don't care what this neighbors say. they say it in front of the board of

supervisors. we still have i right to a hearing as everyone else. that's what we want. send it back. we want a hearing. behind me are mr. lane and mr. oh flynn and the pope street is here. i firmly believe that we less invasive in the united states of america and we should have a right for a hearing. thank you. >> thank you. >> so we can hear from the determination holder next and the department and then we'll take public comment.

>> good evening, my name is dan kramer, here on behalf of wallgreens. so in 2009 about fives years ago wallgreens requested a letter for determination for all wallgreens in san francisco to highlight the zones and what is required for wallgreens elect to pursue alcohol beverage licenses at any of the stores. with the changes in the zoning code and frankly the complexity of the code, wallgreens thought it was important 5 years later to request another determination to answer the same thing but given that there were some changes. we are unclear on some of the issues. mr. sanchez' letter provided a great insight as to what the procedures and policies are

that wall combreens would need to follow in the event that it did elect to pursue beer and wine or alcohol beverage licenses. at this point nothing has been filed with abc. this is just a preliminary step to try and assess what would be the process. there is absolutely no error in the zoning add -- administrators letter. right on point he states that the stores are categorized as sales and services other retail with the specific acknowledgment to general groceries. these types of stores sell beverages, frozen food and paper goods. this is exactly what wallgreens sells. as part of this categorization, the general groceries are allowed to sell

beer and wine and spirits as an accessory use and that's in the planning code. but there is this condition that it can't be more than 15 percent of the square footage otherwise it would be a liquor store. many of you have shopped at wallgreens just to give a reference. you will typically see in a wallgreens that has alcohol beverage license somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 percent of the retail space that's not an exact science, but certainly no where near 15 percent. it if it was more than 15 percent, it would be a liquor store. wallgreens doesn't have more than 15 percent in any of their stores. and then there is issue of whether it's an accessey use or not and also deals with the 15 percent issue and he's addressed that. i just want to address there has been some concern that

the appellant raised about this strip of due process rights. it definitely does not. if wallgreens elects to proceed with an application with abc for any of these stores, they will have to as part of the approval process go before the borpdz board of supervisors where there will be a public hearing. to protest for the liquor license application then there is an administrative law hearing for the abc. at each of these stores there is going to be the opportunity for both the state hearing and a local hearing. so this doesn't strip any rights away. if you have any other questions, i'm here to answer any. >> i have a question to clarify, did you say you pursued an lod in 2009? >> correct. >> and you received one? >> correct. >> and nothing happened?

>> certain actions were taken. some of the wallgreens stores now do have alcohol beverage licenses. over the past five 5 years there has been handful of stores in san francisco that have obtained liquor licenses. >> could you describe the process they went through then followed the lod to get their try the sell the alcohol? >> so, you have to acquire a liquor license on the open market and then apply to the abc for approval of the transfer to the wallgreens location. at that time all the residences within 500 feet of the wallgreens are notified of the application as well as the city, police department. any citizen in the whole city probably in the state, but certainly in the whole city has a right to protest. if a protest is filed, then a

hearing is triggered. on the city side, if the area of the census tract deems a concentration of a process where more alcohol beverage licenses than are allowed under statute due to population or high crime based on police statistics, then that triggers a pcn, public convenience or necessity hearing which is before a subcommittee of a board of supervisors. that's a public hearing where people can voice their opinion oovment >> thank you. >> just to add although it's not part of the technical process, you will find that wallgreens always does extensive community outreach prior to filing any application. so there is never, it's never a surprise to the local community, the

neighborhood groups would be contacted. the police are contacted to weigh in if they have any concerns. in the event that wallgreens elects to apply for a license at any of these stores, you can be sure that all the focus in -- folks in this room will be notified prior to that process occurring. >> yeah, i have a question. my concern is about the determination that it's an accessory use. i'm wondering it seems to be the concern is that in certain locations there will be concentrated sales of alcohol because of the nature of the location. so, does the accessory use definition take into account the percentage of sales that can happen at a certain location or just the footage, the square footage devoted to

display and sales. >> i believe it's the planning code addresses the square footage at 15 percent. >> square footage in terms of the display? >> the selling area. mr. sanchez can elaborate on this, but i believe that it's not of the whole store. it's of the grocery area. so wallgreens would be allowed to say, okay, including, throw in the pharmacy area, now we have x thousand feet and we can take 15 percent of the retail area and the pharmacy. again, i will defer to mr. sanchez, but i believe it's only the area defined as grocery. >> okay. >> are you required to have produce for it to be defined as a grocery? >> not under the planning

code. it's more of a general definition, it says including but not limited to the following. it list the beverages, the dairy. so it's more general as opposed to specific in this code section. >> thank you. we'll hear from mr. sanchez now. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. the subject appeal is an appeal of a letter of determination sought by wallgreens regarding by the zoning regarding whether or not alcohol would be allowed in the 12 locations. all the 12 locations are listed and the zoning definitions are given. the letter of determination is not a permit to change use and does not allow them to start selling alcohol tomorrow. this is simply a response to a

question of the clarification of the requirements of the planning code which i'm obligated to respond to. i required the requirements of the planning code planning code section 790102 defines other retail uses and has other subcategories to it with the umbrella of all the uses. it's one category under the planning code and that will include the pharmacy, general grocery and specialty grocery as well. the catch all retail use. it's not more of a specific use like restaurants that does have different use categories. this is just related to the retail use. under planning code section 703.2. which uses are permitted uses, conditional uses or accessory uses in section code b 1 6, it

provides that you can have as an accessory use as a specialty grocery or general grocery you can have alcohol sales up to 15 percent of the gross area of that use. of the general or speciality grocery. we are responding that wallgreens all false -- falls within the category of the 102 that it pride to. -- applied to. they have toilet and increasing over the years they offer more of a general grocery component. this is all within the same use category. the amount that they have dedicated to that use does not require planning department approval. it's the same use under the planning code. however under section 3.2 for

that portion which can be classified as a grocery or specialty grocery use, the planning code does explicitly allow as of right without any other process allows them to have accessory alcohol sales. this hasn't always been the case. in the past and at neighborhood commercial controls went into effect in 1989 and for many years if you were to have any kind of alcohol sales that would be triggered a liquor store. this would mean that a grocery store, pick your favorite grocery store if they wanted to add beer and wine they have to get approval for a liquor store. in 2007 and 2008 supervisor appeared and introduced legislation that allowed these uses as accessory. it was noted that these uses are appropriate and subordinate component of grocery store uses. that was

allowed and it goes beyond that as well of liquor store of section of all retail use with a size of more than 10,000 square feet regardless of a grossary store or not can have alcohol sales. this was contemplated because of the use like costco has, they sell other merchandise but they also have alcohol for sale. that was something that the board of supervisors specifically allowed. also, all these changes followed the formula use retail controls. there was never any discussion of these code changes subjecting a use that was adding grocery sales for any additional formula use retail requirements. in considering these specs, the belief that the letter of determination is correct that states what the

planning code states reiterating what the planning code allows. i know there is a question about a lack of process and wallgreens has noted there is still significant public process that would be required for the addition of any alcohol license. not would allow them the sales again. this is not a determination that allows the use. that would need to come from the state which regulates alcohol beverage. they would seek a license type 20 or 21 license that offers alcohol sales and abc would submit a referral to the planning department and at that time we would make a determination on the ma amount of sales and when we would review the application and when we would make the final determination applying the planning code and limiting the amount of area that can be devoted to liquor sales. i think the representative for wallgreens

noted that in not all areas are undue concentration which are a publicen convenience and request. the board of supervisors would have the say whether or not that use would allow if it does in fact trigger the pcn request, if they exceeded the amount by floor area, not by sales. it's simply an area devoted to the sale and display of merchandise. if they did exceed 15 percent then they would be considered a liquor store under the planning code that would trigger and the majority of the cases new conditional use authorization for that liquor store. however there are some locations which it would not be permitted in because those properties located within an ncb zone district even though the district is the most intention commercial zone district doesn't allow liquor stores. so any uftsz -- uses that

are within the mc 3 rd district could not exceed the amount because liquor stores would not be allowed. i think that addresses most of the points. i'm happy to answer any questions the board may have. thank you. >> we can take public comment now as individuals who wish to speak, please step forward. >> hello board, my name is ed lane. i'm the owner of united liquors chest no. nut and difference droe. divisadero. the store is there 75 years. we are a few feet from wallgreens. if they get beer, liquor and wine, it's going to put our store in jeopardy. it could put us out of business,

but for sure it's going to cost employees. we have nine employees, we'll end up going to about nine. the other thing is there is a wall green's, not only that, within a one 1/2 block area, there are four all sale stores, they sell liquor beer and wine. there are plenty of people to take care of that. there is another wallgreens about eight 8 blocks away on the other end of the street, if they get it too, the whole area is going to be saturated with walgreen's. you are not going to have the family little store anymore. you are just going to have the big store. they say they don't take up much area. 15 percent of those stores is like the size of our store. and the other thing they have is a tremendous advantage of buying power. they have thousands of stores. like they are a hundred

thousand and we are 1,000. even though they are going to take a small space. within that small space they take the product and bring the price down to nothing. it's tough to compete with that. so what i'm trying to do here is get a conditional use hearing if if you are -- obliged to do that. that's about it. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good evening, board. my name is greg os land. a san francisco native. raised in the marina. i went to saint vincent grammar school on green street and went to high school here in the city. after college i returned to the marina and opened my business which is the california wine

merchant back in 1974. so this year i'm celebrating my 40th anniversary of being in business. not as long as 52 years for ed behind me, but i'm proud of that achievement. it's taken a lot of hard work and dedication to sustain a business here in san francisco for that amount of time. it's been my life, my career. throughout the past 40 years i provided goods and services, wine to my neighbors and can ustomers in the marina. i believe that i have become part of the president bashar al-assad -- fabric of that community and is survived for that amount of time. i think that my store is part of what makes chestnut street and the rest of the marina such a charming place to live and to shop. i do believe that my

business would suffer if wallgreens was granted a liquor license. they are on the same block as i am on chestnut between pearson and steiner. and their storefront door is 75 feet from my storefront door. so it's direct direct competition. as i mentioned, the national corporate chain such as wall combreens -- wallgreens has enormous buying power and they can negotiate prices well beyond my reach. i currently have eight people on my staff not counting myself and it would be devastating to see my business decline to the point that i would have the cut back hours or lay people off. it would be a shame to lose