Thats what people really want. I think it keeps the dialogue alive. And the new operators and the old operators know in three years there a lookback and evaluated. Would that be okay with the seconder . Okay. Three year sunset. Okay. Commissioners, on that motion for additional excuse me, to adopt a resolution recommending approval with the modifications that additional emphasis on enforcement be included. A prohibition on new bars located within 100 feet of another existing bar. That new bars outside of 100 feet would require a conditional use authorization. And new restaurants would require a conditional use authorization. That the 12 a. M. Limit be restricted but restaurants are required to continue food service until closing and removing the tobacco component with the three year sunset returning to the Planning Commission. And we have the three year abandonment. And the threeyear abandonme abandonment. Is that everything . I have a restaurant question, if a restaurant under this le
100 feet of another. so if prohibited outright they could not apply. and that s different from the staff recommendation. that would be our preference, to have the prohibition within the 100 feet. yeah, for bars. right, not including restaurants. commissioner sagaya. i will second that. in the 100 feet it s not addressing the problem, and it s an overconcentration of 6 blocks. and whether this is a block within that six blocks. you can t put new ones. it doesn t necessarily address the issue. i don t know what the 100 feet gets us. i would be more open to the ban. the outright ban in the rud. with that sunset in two years or three years, when we have to take a break from bars and restaurants and reevaluate that after three years. commissioner borden. i take a different tact, if we do an outright prohibition. i look at rush street that has restaurants and those are not the liquor licenses. some people feel too many restaurants; right. that s a different story.
really behaving appropriately. i do support the ban within 100 feet and the fee. commissioner. the representatives and represents of supervisor chiu, a three-year sunset and after the three years it has to come back to the planning commission whether reinstated or lifted. i think if you do that, you ask for a report or something. there would have to be a report. there would have to be something tangible to decide. the neighbors will react to that. right, but i think it would be useful to identify the blocks or lots or the bad actors; right. let s be honest. that s what people really want. i think it keeps the dialogue alive. and the new operators and the old operators know in three years there a look-back and evaluated. would that be okay with the seconder? okay. three year sunset. okay. commissioners, on that motion for additional excuse me, to adopt a resolution recommending approval with the modifications that additional emphasis on enforcement be