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 the

unique shops on chestnut streets to corporate formula stores that we find everywhere. it's these mom and pop family owned businesses that make-up chestnut streets business community. i would ask for a conditional use hearing on this issue. thank you. >> any other public comment? step forward. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is daun tremors and i represent the neighborhood association. it's a pleasure to be with you this evening. before i begin i want to make one comment. on page

2 unto mr. sanchez letter under determination it says the cu authorization from planning is not required for wallgreens. so i just wanted to make that statement that the cu is not required per the letter and let me get started now. i respectfully question mr. sanchez and the blanket determination in the letter of determination listing the various wallgreens in a very many different types of zoning districts that they exist in. i'm listing them as general grocery therefore allowing them alcohol as an accessory use without the benefit of any neighborhood hearings. or looking at each wall green outlet individually as they all are in different neighborhoods with different

zoning with different conditions and different issues and problems in the neighborhoods. in the 1990's, wallgreens took itself out of the business of selling alcohol even though it was the most profitable portion of their business. they said they wanted to focus on being a health care business. now it seems that san francisco has determined that they are in the general grocery business, so therefore they are categorically allowed to have an alcohol department and this is being done without the neighborhood being heard. my particular neighborhood association took a vote on this whether we would support wallgreens in our last monthly meeting and with the exception of 1 person, it was unanimous that we did not want or need

more alcohol in our neighborhood and we did not need a company the size of wallgreens selling the alcohol. the wallgreens on pope street, we have two of them, five 5 blocks away from each other and pope street has a huge alcohol issue right now with over saturation of alcohol availability. please let the neighborhoods be heard. we want a hearing on this. we want our issues to be known and then we'll work along with wallgreens and mr. sanchez. thank you. >> thank you. >> excuse me, i'm going recuse myself on the advice of council with potential conflict and ask the vice-chair to continue the meeting. >> thank you. is there more public comment? please step forward. >> hello, good evening, my name is marlene, i represent

the neighborhood association. i think you all have a letter from our organization. last year we had two different cases at planning. one was expansion of van ness and went to planning and one was application of cvs of van ness and post to sell alcohol. both of those went to planning. they were not simply a right or an accessory. the planning commission denied the application of cvs to sell alcohol and it approved the increase of bef mow on van ness of a negotiated settlement with supervisor chew. the importance of a quality department like

behind the -- bevmo. hitting the van ness corridor and coming into cathedral hill. is we have a huge influx of young people every night partying on pope street and the bars close and they are coming up and hitting the grocery stores. it's very critical for us in this corridors to have not a wall green's or an all night convenience store selling alcohol, but to keep the alcohol confined to a liquor store like bevmo. we have other family liquor stores in the neighborhood. we have plenty of alcohol, plenty of alcohol outlets. if the wallgreens on franklin were

to sell liquor we would want to request a hearing on planning. it's unfair to ask cvs to go to a hearing and have wallgreens simply granted it going through a b c. we would ask the board to if in all of these cases whether it's an application for liquor sales at a wallgreens to have a conditional use hearing. thank you. >> thank you. new other public comment? okay, seeing none. ms. vaughey, you have three 3 minutes of rebuttable. >> first of all mr. sanchez did not address that nine people were on his letter of determination. second of all, how can you have the 15 percent unless you have a conditional use hearing, you

cannot designate that that 15 for this little tiny grocery store won't grow 15 percent. what i'm asking for conditional use hearing is to clarify all of this. wallgreens cannot be considered a specialty grocery store according to 790.cv 6. if they are an accessory use and for an accessory use how can you have a sub, it says in further parts of the code that you can't have a subordinate state conditional use. this all needs to be claire rified. it needs to be clarified and we can't do it unless we go

through a city planning process otherwise we would be bypassed by the board of supervisors. they have already hired clemons for our neighborhood to have to go to the big lobbyist. it's a very hard thing for us to do because we don't have the money. i really think this is flawed because you didn't answer it. he didn't saying specialty grocery store and it's not a grocery store. this code should be changed if he applies it to it. another thing, in the case of lumbar and chestnut, it's very interesting. can you see this at all? >> yes. >> okay. nc 3 is based on if something has a wall on lombardy. there are some houses that have walls and they are 25 feet. the next

house is nc 2. are you following me on this? it's nc 2. so some areas of the chestnut street shopping district which is what i call that area, they have not, you can't say this is nc 3 and nc 2. if we are sent just to the board of supervisors we are going to lose because of the lobbyist. i think this is an important thing. he was not clear. he was not forthcoming and stating that he didn't reply. there is no guarantee that they won't go up to the full 15 percent. thank you. >> thank you. mr. kramer, you have three 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you. a number of the

people speaking this evening have asked. it sounds like they have asked you to authorize ag a conditional use permit. that can only be done if it's within the planning code of the zoning of the store or the use dictates that a conditional use permit is required. i haven't heard anything that's been raised or anything the planning code that's been cited that indicates that a conditional use permit is required based on the zoning or the use. also i just want to address the question of well, how can we be sure that the 15 percent threshold is monitored or to

address that, as part of the abc application process of the zoning to the process with that sign off by the planning department and the planning department will ask for diagrams and cleared demarkation where that is sold and they will say if the code if it's not within the correct use or that a conditional use permit is needed then that will be conveyed to the abc. at all stages of the process, the planning department is kept in the loop. it's not just here is a letter of determination and that's the last time wallgreens will interface with the planning

department. so there will be plenty of opportunity with both the city, with planning, with abc to raise any objections to wallgreens getting an abc license at any of their stores. thank you. >> thank you. a n i have a question. so there are some wallgreens in san francisco that currently have the accessory use that are currently selling alcohol? >> yeah. a small minority. >> where, do you know where those locations are, all of them? >> one is on pal and oh farrell where the cable turn around is, another one is on spruce and california in laurel village. >> was there opposition? do you know whether there was opposition at the time for the selling of alcohol at those

locations? >> yes at each of those locations, at the spruce and california there was a protest filed with the abc that required an administrative use hearing. at the flagship store which was recently licensed about a year ago there was both protest filed with the abc and with the board of supervisors there was a lengthy hearing. >> okay. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. just responding to a few points in regards to the allegation that i did not respond to all of the 12 locations listed in the february 7, 2014, request for letter of determination all 12 locations within the zoning district n page two of the

letter determination response following the determination about how to planning code applies to those properties. they have all been addressed i believe. in regards to concerns about competition, i certainly appreciate those concerns related to how formula retail use may compete with small businesses and sympathetic to that in regards to concentration to alcohol uses, it's something that would be addressed through the state abc license process and through hearings at the board of supervisors. i would also suggest, i think there is a qualified difference between kind of what you would expect from wallgreens experience and what you would expect from a small local alcohol merchant. certainly if and when i do buy alcohol i prefer to go to someone that specializes in that and you have a wider selection to choose from. in regards to the examples that were given of cvs and bevmo,

the cvs at post and van ness, the galaxy theatre site, i think at trader joes had been approved to be at the bottom of that but did not pursue that. cvs sought that location and the conditional use trigger for that location was that establishing a new formula retail use in that location which had never been occupied by any other commercial use. it was not the fact that they were offering alcohol use in that requirement. maybe if it had been another retail store the possibility they could have gone without that. in this case the cu was triggered in the formula retail use and this commission did find concern with that and as a formula retail use limited their ability to not have accessory of alcohol. with proposed, with the

significant expansion doubling the size but considering the conditional use authorization of the formula retail use. that was the requirement there. i think there was i want to say a guitar center. they took over that space. so that triggered that requirement as probably a use requirement. i think i have responded to all those points. i'm available to any questions you may have. >> mr. sanchez, what is the history of the walgreen's specific land use designation? were they always designated as such with these accessory uses? >> so in the planning code in the current planning code they would be classified as a retail use. that's the use category that they are. i think over time they have modified their business a bit to offer more grocery type merchandise. that's within the same planning code use

category. that does not trigger any additional reviews. so if they decide to devote more square footage to the grocery use, the planning department does not review that. that's something they can change around the merchandise in their store. but, i would say that typically they probably have been more on the order of the pharmaceuticals and toilet trees. but they have expanded the amount for grocery stores and those are permitted uses within the zoning district and within the same use category itself. >> they do not require any specific entitlement action? >> no. >> that's the carry over to the building permits in terms of use? >> the only difference that there might be because usually

they may need electrical permit for any of the rerefrigerator like that, i think the occupant can still be a retail use, i guess. depending on the food use that might trigger a public health. >> i was going to say that, a public health permit. >> there might be a public health permit. we would not see it as a change of use. >> isn't the situation, not isn't, but it seems to me that the situation is similar to target selling alcohol, beer and wine, right? and when target came developed their stores, in most i think recently i think the one, the city target on gary and near

the may -- you know about those processes with respect to the sales of alcohol. >> just in general, they have an issue regarding their starbucks because it was a formula retail and the reason why chipotle is being held up. the planning commission just heard conditional uses for that location. the chipotle starbucks, starbucks is actually within the target of masonic and gary and we have long determined that formula retail within a formula retail use even if it's accessory that would still require the formula retail c u. >> the formula target formula resale use. i don't know if they sell alcohol there, however they would be, the

code would allow it at that location because under the definition of liquor store they physically exempted the kind of retail uses regard residue if it's a liquor store or not. a large retail use you can have accessory of alcohol sales. it's getting to the idea. get together idea of costco that may not be a grocery store but the board of supervisors decided that a large use like that should be allowed to sell alcohol regardless if he they are a grocery store or not. >> okay. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. anybody want to start? >> i will start. i'm not really convinced that wallgreens is entitled. that it is expansion of use. as a former small business owner in san francisco, i have seen what big box companies

formula retail can do. i think that i don't know if we can condition the c u, but i think that might be a good process. if you look at the public that spoke against the powell and other locations that had granted alcohol, i think that it would be a good thing to have this opened up to the public prior to the abc. >> i just wanted to remind the commissioners that the standard error of question. >> microphone. >> i'm sorry, i meant to remind the commissioners and perhaps the parties that the standard error or views of discretion by the administrator. >> thank you. >> again, go ahead. anybody else? >> oh, say a couple of things. it does appear to me that

wallgreens has pursued a policy of, i don't know, i hate to create these terms but land use crepe and it just continues and the fact is they are trying to look for higher margin products. i can understand the profit motive, but the fact is the wallgreens i remember first, first time i ever win one -- went to one is not the wallgreens that is now. there is the question of did the zoning administrator error, unfortunately i don't think he errored. i'm sympathetic to what the points that have been made, but this is a corporate profit venture that they are trying to increase their profit at

their existing location. >> well, i am sympathetic to the competition issues as well but i am mindful of the standards. i would probably agree more with commissioner fung on this one. i don't see any error or abuse of discretion. i think the proper venue for this is the abc hearing process and/or a change of legislation with the board of supervisors. i read the code exactly the same as the zoning administrator does. so for that reason, i would make a motion that we deny the appeal and uphold the determination based on no error or abuse of discretion. >> thank you. mr. pacheco. city clerk: we have a motion from the vice-president to

uphold this letter of determination on the basis of the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his discretion. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hwang? aye, president is recused. commissioner honda? no. >> thank you. the vote is 3-1. this lod is upheld on that basis, thank you. >> there is no further business. >> we are adjourned then. >> [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>