>> good morning and welcome to the [inaudible] services committee, my name is sean elsbernd. (audio very low and unclear). >> the first hearing is a liquor license on hyde street. >> i'm with the police department. the applicant has filed an application with the california department of alcohol beverage control, beverage license type 42, this is an on-sale beer and wine for 1059 hyde street, the california department of alcohol beverage control seeks the determination from the board of supervisors for the approval or denial. the police calls for service on june, 2011 to june 2012. the police reports during that same period, there was no record [inaudible] this premises is located on plot 542, this is a high crime as defined as -- this high crime is defined as 250 or more reported incidents. they shall be permitted only fwaoen the hours of 12 noon and 11 p.m. each day of the week, the sale for on-sale consumption is completely prohibited. no noise shall be depicted on the abc dated june 12, 2012. number 4, the petition ers shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter over which they have control, number 5, graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under control of the licensee under 24 hours, if the graffiti happens on the holiday day, the licensee should remove the graph feet within 72 hours, they should be equipped with lighting to make easily discernable the appearance and conduct on or about the premises, additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and i use of any neighboring residences, and number 7, loitering is prohibited on any sidewalk or property adjacent to the licensed property. thank you. >> thank you, project sponsor, we heard from -- he's unable to attend. are there any members of the public that want to comment on this. if you want to come up, come forward. >> [inaudible]. >> my time now. >> okay, my name is michael nulty, i'm the executive director of alliance for better district 6, our organization has a protest against this license. first, we have -- well, it's clear when you see an applicant that have no letters of support, they didn't do any community outreach, two, we've never seen a community plan for the business, and three, we believe that there's a questionable business plan if you look at the way their packet reads, there's so many documents in there that you normally don't see in somebody looking for a pcn, so we aren't clear exactly what the business is going to do and we're actually just concerned about, it's a high concentration of crime neighborhood and we don't see a security plan. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, my name is mike and this is my brother roger, thank you, commissioners for hearing to sell beer and wine in a vacant space in the building, we are also in the process of opening a coffee shop and other vacant space on the other side of the lobby. as you can see for our submission to the board, our family owns and operates a few small businesses including four that sell alcohol, we've been commended by the san francisco police department for our management of these businesses, we fully understand the conditions outlined by the police for our proposed wine bar, we also pledge to follow them and work with the neighborhood that has concerns, we are excited to get the two businesses up and running, we respectfully ask that you vote to grant the pcn request. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and you gaoe with all the conditions that have been proposed by the police department? >> we, we -- yes, we do. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors, i've lived in san francisco for 60 years, if my memory serves me correctly, i was under the impression that the city was trying to limit the issuance of new licenses in regards to liquor, so i was kind of wondering whether that policy is still being followed or as usual, there's always exceptions made depending who you are, so i would like to bring that subject up and i would like to hear the supervisors review that policy to see if it is true that we're trying to limit the new license fees especially in high crime areas, like the merchants know they can't really control or in a certain sense discriminate against the customers they have, so you know, you may have all the greatest intentions in the world but if people come and do whatever they wish near your property then you're kind of at their mercy, though, you know, just another liquor store sounds innocent on its own, but then when you really think about it, does that mean that's another loitering place or it's another place where gang members might accidentally meet and we'll have another shoot-out, thank you. >> and just for the record, this is not a liquor store, it's a wine bar. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is john nulty, if i believe correctly, this is amc theatre on top, this is on the ground floor, so therefore you have theatre, you have underage people coming in and you want to sell alcohol, so i'm questioning again, coming to the community, no security plan and again the boilerplate conditions by the police department when they're already oversaturated in this neighborhood, there's a proposal already for a restriction in this neighborhood of alcohol licenses by david chu if he ever gets the legislation off the ground, he came to the neighborhood already about this and putting five on the agenda today, all of them basically surrounding district 6, so i'm wondering about the wisdom of the city of having an all day liquor license of granting five today. >> any other members of the public who would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public item is closed. do we have a motion? >> i would like to move it forward with recommendations. >> that would be the order, mr. clerk, can you slowly read item 1 so president chu can come from across the hall. >> item number 1, hearing to consider the issuance of a type 21 off-sale general liquor license to landmark retail group for cvs pharmacy located at 1059 hyde street. >> president chu, this one is in your district. >> i would like to first of all address i think the last comment of the public comment on the items for today on my count, there are two items in district 3 which are items 1 and 2 and both of them involve situations that the community and neighborhood groups i think are quite supportive of. i do know that a fourth item is in district 10 so there are two items in district 6 and i appreciate the comment that was made. i do want to mention in the lower poke neighborhood, we have had a conversation about whether there ought to be some cap on future liquor licenses as i discussed with the lower poke neighbors just last week or two weeks ago, my office is preparing legislation to consider an alcoholic reduced risk, i look to bringing that legislation forward hopefully in the next few weeks, with regards to item number 1, this involves a site that my office and the neighborhoods that are represented here have been working on for a number of years. at this site at california and hyde, there existed a cal food supermarket, they decided to pull out of that area and all of us were troubled at the idea that that very dense set of neighborhoods, really the intersection of middle poke, lower poke and nob hill would be left without a supermarket, so it would be to bring a trader joe's along with a cvs along to that site, it has unanimous support of what we want to see happen there, now cvs wanted a liquor license nr the neighborhood and this is a part of my district that has a significant number of liquor licenses and i want to thank the neighborhood associations that worked with my office as well as the project spore -- sponsor to come up with a good solution, and that is as follows, cvs would like to have a liquor license but what the neighborhood and what my office has asked them to do is to purchase several liquor licenses, particularly at 2 undesirable alcohol retailers to take two licenses off the street in return for the liquor license that they will have, cvs has purchased the licenses from jane d. liquors at 1042 polk street in the lower poke neighborhood as well as spencer and dan ems at 1541 polk street which is in the lower poke association, these are problem vendors for which there have been numerous neighborhood complaints over the years and these are licenses that will not be used by cva at the property or sold to another liquor retailer in the neighborhood, these will be results in the elimination of two beer and wine liquor sellers in the neighborhood that have been identified as problem retailers in the past, i want to thank lower poke neighbors had submitted a letter for this particular outcome, i want to note for our colleagues that the conditions that are proposed for this particular liquor license were heavily negotiated between my office and the neighborhood association, because of that, i ask my klaoeks -- colleagues to vote for this. >> the applicant has filed an application with abc seeking a type 20 for 1059 hyde street, for the purposes of this hearing, the abc seeks a determination pr the board of supervisors as the approval or denial of this liquor license, no police calls for service from july 2010 to july 2012, no record of police reports from august 2011 to august 2012, the application premises located in a high crime area, the applicant premises located in an undue concentration area, there's one valid letter of protest -- to abc and there's no letter of support to abc, there's no opposition of central station and staff recommends approval with the following, number one, the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. daily, no more than 5% of the square footage will be displayed for alcoholic beverage, no malt beverage should be shoeld with the alcoholic content greater than .57% by volume, the single sale or malt beverages of 16 ounce, 22 ounce, 32 ounce or 40 ounce or similar size containers is prohibited, no beer or wine beverage, should be sold in quantities of less than a manufacturer prepackaged quantities of four or more, number 6, no wine should be sold with an alcohol content greater than 15% except for wine that has been aged for two years or more and maintained in a cork bottle, loitering is prohibited on any of the sidewalks and property adjacent to the license premises under control of the licensee, the petitioner should have equipment, the surveillance shall record and be operation to all times to the premises be kept open to the public, that recording should be kept for a minimum of 7 days and shall be made available to law enforcement on demand. >> would the project sponsor like to say anything? >> good morning, supervisors, president, holly, [inaudible] representative from cvs to answer any of your question, whether it's specifically about the pronlt or the history of leading up through the neighborhood outreach. i did want to make one point of correction, on the agenda, it identifies the type 21 license, we are in fact [inaudible] a type 20 beer and wine only. if you have any questions, i'm here. >> does staff present an issue? >> while the city attorney is reviewing that, let's go to public comment. any people in the public that wish to comment on this, please line up. >> good morning, supervisors, i'd like the overhead, please. overhead, please. >> it will come, if you could start speaking, go for it. >> yes. david chu made a point that the licenses were bought by cvs, here is one of the locations on poke not been bought off the abc website, it would have been updated, and also as you can see, it also states that the license has been surrendered so therefore i ask now legally the question of lower poke in their packet, the recommendation in january and in march, what i just showed you has been surrendered and it has one year in which it is to be purchased, it has not been purchased. part number 2, this is the second issue of the license being claimed to be bought which is not part of the conditions by abc, again, it does not show it's been bought by cvs. so, now i question who is still in the property -- or owner involved, cvs does not own it, misrepresentation here. i was at the meeting for january for lower poke and the community, we voted, but again when we went to the planning commission, the planning commission was concerned about this, this site and there was a big discussion about that in the planning commission when cvs and the other entity, trader joe's, wanted to have two liquor licenses, so i think there's been a big discussion and no outreach to all the neighborhood. >> good morning, supervisors. this item reminds me about the big discussion here at city hall regarding walgreens and their selling of tobacco, now, i say why give walgreens trouble for selling tobacco and let their competitors, cvs sell liquor? now, nobody's going to figure out which one causes more harm, liquor or tobacco, but i think if the city's going to be fair and consistent and not show any signs of special influence, we should be consistent and say if we're going to give walgreens a hassle about has -- tobacco, then we should treat cvs the same about the liquor. it's kind of like saying, you know, that's the way it is, but then, i'm a firm believer of seeing the evidence just like a judge does. thank you. >> mr. nulty? >> i'd like to pass this in. my name is michael nulty, i'm the executive director for better alliance 6, we'd like to request a continuance on this item. we would like to acquire proof purchase of 1021 polk street off-sale liquor license as well as the 1541 polk street type 21 liquor license, we'd like to see that it's been transferred, then the community will be satisfied that cvs is acting in good faith, we're not clear on the relationship between the gar field beach cvsllc which is the liquor license owner that's been talked about and then we are also not clear about how a surrendered license purchase helps the polk street corridor when the license is no longer actively a nuisance in that area, so we have a lot of concern about this and then again as of today on the abc website, i want to reiterate that -- the overhead, at 1042 polk street, this is off the abc website, the license is still active with the previous owner and as well as the license at 1541 polk street, the license has been surrendered, so it's not been purchased by anybody, so this is as of today, because the inquiry was done on the 21st, that doesn't mean that they update until tonight, the 22nd. >> any other members of the public wish to comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> you can go and consider this item. >> thank you. supervisor olague. >> i'm inclined not to support this but for the sake of the discussion and because the supervisor has worked with the neighbors for a long time, i remember when this first came to the planning commission and many of the lower poke neighbors had expressed a deep concern about allowing this liquor license, but given that they're going to be obtaining those licenses from two problematic locations, then i'm happy to get this through this committee, but i may not be supporting it at the board because i don't see -- i believe that it's time that we start to scrutinize the number of products that some of these pharmacies are selling and with trader joe's sitting next door, they have an extensive liquor selection, i don't see the necessity of adding a beer and wine license to a pharmacy, so again, out of respect for the lower poke neighborhood association, the work they've done with the supervisor's office and i'm trying to get it through to the board but i think this is an issue that i would like to -- i think it's time that we start to review and i will be happy to work with supervisor chu, engage in some of these discussions with supervisor mar, we're looking at creating healthier retail spaces and i think that this is very much should be part of that discussion. so, i'm willing to move it to the next level. >> president chu? >> thank you, supervisor olague and let me say a couple of things on that point. this was not an ideal situation for the neighborhood which is why we spent many month toser negotiate and require cvs to take a number of liquor licenses out of problematic areas and i have stated to the neighborhood that i did not anticipate supporting another situation like this, at least within the polk street neighborhoods and i would be open to considering legislation if that is a direction that we want to go through as a city to state that for these types of entities, alcohol may not be appropriate, that is a conversation that would be for the future, but supervisor olague, i'm more than happy to work with your office on that, doi want to ask the project sponsor if you can address the concerns that have been addressed for alliance for better district 6, you have selected the purchases of the license that were significant issue and negotiation with the neighborhood and if you could tell us that specific situation, i think that would help clarify the concerns raised. >> holly from [inaudible] on behalf of cvs, the reason that you see the licenses as surrendered is they're in escrow until we have a location to transfer to or have the approval of the pcn and then can cancel and eliminate those licenses to be sold to anyone else, cvs does not operate the location that the existing licenses are tied to, they cannot physically own those licenses until they're moved, and that's the likely pathway of the spencer and daniel's license, the jane d. liquor, we're looking for an opportunity to move it to another location, we would do the same process which is to surrender it for 90 days, they can't bring in a new license, we've been thoughtful in how we've been purchasing the licenses from prohibiting the neighborhood to purchasing another license. >> and are those documents that you are able to share with folks. what can you share with the neighborhood? >> i will show you that they are under a contract. >> and i would love to share that with neighborhood folks if folks would like to say that, colleagues, one thing i would like the point out that the san francisco police department, they did do their due diligence on this, the neighborhood did negotiate a number of voluntary conditions beyond what the san francisco police department had requested and what i would like to ask that the draft voluntary conditions that were laid out in the project sponsor agreement that were negotiated with the neighborhoods which would probably add five or six conditions on what the police department had asked, that those be adopted by this commission. >> yes. >> and one of those conditions states that these licenses, the additional licenses will be not only purchased by transferred out of the area so there's not a concern of that, they'll still somehow be moved in and around the area. >> okay, seeing no other comment, supervisor olague, would you prefer to send this item forward without a recommendation? >> we'll send it forward with a recommendation. >> mr. clerk, that would be the order. >> can you please read item number 2. >> item number 2, hearing to consider the transfer of a type 48 on-sale general public premises liquor license from 247 pow well street to 165 jefferson street. >> again, president chu, in your district. >> thank you, mr. chair, colleagues, this is a liquor license that involves an establishment that i think many in san francisco know quite well which is the gold dust lounge, it has had a wonderful history in union square and fortunately the land lard to the gold dust lounge did not see fit to continue renting to that establishment and instead is moving a national clothing boutique into that space which from my perspective and i think the per spective of many, i think supervisor olague thought was a real shame given the historic nature of the gold dust lounge, i was heartened and i think many were heartened to learn that the gold dust lounge hopes and plans to be moving to the fisherman's wharf area, this is a liquor license related to that, i know there was significant outreach to the fisherman's wharf area to make sure folks would understand the kind of neighborhood business that the gold dust lounge has been and with that, this is a liquor license transfer that i support and i just want to mention because the comment had been made before, this would be moving this specific liquor license really away from the district 6 area which is where i know some of the activists here have had issues with and moving it along the waterfront on to jefferson street. er >> thank you, president chu, does the project sponsor have any comments before we move to public comment? please come forward if