tv [untitled] April 5, 2013 12:30pm-1:00pm PDT
discussion between neighbors and merchants and the supervisors dirict office and as with any process some would like to see the restrictions further and others would like to see relaxed. this is the interest of business communities and i would add a balance of what we try to do here. i know there are folks here who would want to see more restrictions and others who would want to see less and as with the case with many pieces of legislation we try to balance the interest. >> i miss spoke on one piece. the tobacco paraphernalia is one district, i just want to clarify that. >> can i ask about the paraphernalia issue? i apologies. i was hoping you can explain the issue a little bit better. from a lay person's perspective i understand
president chiu's point, i understand when there is a big difference between the store that sells multiple thing and that also have some pipes and tobacco rollers and a significant portion that is a tobacco paraphernalia. is it an issue we haven't defined what that means. i was hoping we can clarify that. >> there are a few components to that. within the polk district, the presence of any amount of tobacco paraphernalia. makes it a tobacco store paraphernalia. any store with shelf space makes it a tobacco paraphernalia. >> actually it's not correct. in 2009 legislation i had it
was very specific defined financing to be a percentage of the square footage. we did reduce it from what had been the case otherwise but it's not just anything. it's very clearly defined. what i understand from planning is that it's hard for you to measure what a percent from occupied force is or what amount of feet of display, but there is a standard. >> so it's more aligned with the way that it's a tobacco paraphernalia shop. when it's based on how the shelves are stocked in theory it would be forward enough for an operator to remove those items and put them back and remove them and put them back. one idea we had is to consider some form of licensing to become a tobacco
paraphernalia shop, but i understand it's somewhat cumbersome for small businesses. >> if it helps to figure that out, i'm happy to work with you on that. >> has there been instances when the department has been asked to enforce or were there case whenever we were able to successfully enforce this issue as well? >> there have been cases where we have been, we think successful in enforcing them for a period of time. and again, we don't always know and we also think there have been cases in which it been impossible for us successfully enforce the issue because we too know when you walk into a store that it's probably a tobacco paraphernalia establishment if there happens to be an amount of shelf space empty, we know that the stock has been removed for the
short-term. another thing brought up by enforcement staff when there is an issue of competition among tobacco paraphernalia shop will report a violation on another with the idea of reducing competition. i don't know how accurate that is or not, but that's what we've heard. thank you. >> i would like to call up captain mckenna. >> supervisors, good afternoon. i don't have a presentation. i don't believe the entertainment commission took a formal position. they were interacting with supervisor chiu's office on a regular basis for
feedback. i'm here to answer questions and want to thank you for the entertainment on conditional use situation and other amendments were made you are pretty please withdraw -- with those. >> we look forward to working on the entertainment commission. >> i hope your office will assist us with resource considerations when we talk about enforcement of those good neighbor policies. >> we would be happy to consider that in the future. >> any additional? captain, please. >> good afternoon supervisors, public. greg mcgreek an that overseas the corridor. i came to speak to you on the current legislation moving forward. the polk street corridor has
changed dramatically from with respect to law enforcement in the past 4 or 5 years where the challenges are different now. the establish ments that have come in have had a positive influence in the area. i think it's important that we recognize that there are a lot of positive changes to that polk street quarter with these establishments coming in. we have seen however with the large influx of those that there are times where there are public safety health hazards from other issues that have popped up. this current legislation is moving forward to have this moratorium on the liquor license is one that the police department would support at this time because we need to work on a balance from where we are before and to where we want to continue to go in a safe manner. i want to say here as
both the captain and representative of the police department to show our support for the legislation it's currently moves forward for this moratorium in the period of time in the understanding in the if you years we'll look at it again to see where we go. one thing that bears pointing out and this is for all public listening that i think we'll improve the areas that have more restaurants down there. the positive we have seen in restaurants that serve alcohol that gives individuals to have an opportunity to enjoy a nice meal and maybe go to one of these establishments afterwards and it strikes a balance where we have restaurants and more bars. with that i just want to come forward with the police department's perspective and happy to answer any questions you might have. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just want to ask the same question that i asked the office of small
businesses. one of my concern is the off sale liquor licenses that we see in other parts of the city. what kind of restrictions generally happen and maybe i will just limit it to polk street in terms of the off sale liquor permits on polk street? >> currently we look at all the applications that come forward for anyone that wants to have off sale we look at what business they have in the past. we look at the number of businesses in the area that currently have off sale and make recommendations based on what we see as a health safety and whether or not it has an influx already. on the polk street quarter there are a number of off sale establishments and at this time there is a sufficient enough that are there that we would want to at least try to manage
it at the level we are moving to at this period of time . do >> do they sell after 2 a.m. >> no. they do not. but most that are open stay open until 2 a.m.. many open until 24 hours but they will continue to serve alcohol until it's no longer legal. >> how do we ensure that they do not sell alcohol. >> there are ways to make sure. when we get complaints from neighbors we look at establishments to make sure they are not serving after 2 a.m.. there are times where the officers are working in the streets and if they were to see someone coming out of the store after 2 a.m. that was open they would have the ability to stop and talk to the person about whether or not it was liquor sold after those hours. most of
the stores we have found, do not violate the 2:00 because it is such a risk for them to lose such a profitable thing for them. that's how we go about looking at ways to enforce to determine no one is selling past the legal hour. >> last i want to mention is the captain talked about bringing in more restaurants and wanted to carve out the ability to bring in new restaurants which is something the entire neighborhood wants to see from merchants to bar owners and club owners. i want to say that publically and hopefully that will change as well in the coming years. >> great. colleagues, any additional comments? >> thank you, captain. i don't think there are in i other departments here. why don't we open for public comments. >> i have one public comment cards but i see there are a number of folks who also wish to speak to public comment. if
shawn is here and anyone else who wishes to speak please lineup on either side to move this forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is shawn mars yack. there is a time limit? i have to be quick. my client is ddr on vanes. because the time is short. i need to state the grounds for their objections for legal reasons and would like to get to solutions because everybody wants to talk about solution more than objections. the project currently has been determined to be subject to a sequel exemption according to regulation o c 2. respectfully that is not an exemption, that
is something that governs when sequel applies. an exemption applies when something the determined by sequel passed by legislature or california resource agency. the project was determined to be exempt from sequel because it's not an i mpact. here bank or significantly restricting a use of the certain area will displace that use to other areas of the city including without limitation to nearby areas where for instance liquor stores and bars currently are permitted. the displacement of use causes a host of physical impacts including patterns and cuing impacts, noise impacts because you are creating a non-mobile sources that are shifted to new locals and new
sensitive receptors, their air quality impacts in traffic patterns and new construction. for safety issues, because there is unsteadied affected on police and fire response time. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> linda chapman. we need more control. people are asking for moratorium. lower polk neighbors is not a residents organization. it's an organization of essentially of bar owners and the smallest number of residents who live in the neighborhood commercial
district from post north which is essentially what i'm talking about, there are a few residents that come up from alice street. you are not getting much from residents. the conditions are horrible. my sister tried to take a bus and every bar there is a huge crowd. the streets are full. the noise is horrible. people have -- one building they submitted 60 complaints to the police in as many months about the noise going on like a football game from maybe 11:30 until 3:00 a.m.. finally the only enforcement has been police. chief sent his top guns to come up with a new plan and now we have a new captain.
these operation are operating illegally 47 licenses are operating as night clubs and straight bars. even the health department says they couldn't be a restaurant, they don't have a kitchen and don't do anything like that and because they open until 2 a.m.. the restaurants become bars and night clubs. like the places like maze that used to be a restaurant. the tables are cleared away so it can be a dance floor. the conditions on the street are just unbelievable. people are bused in from the east bay. >> thank you, miss chapman. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i saw a
>> next speaker. >> thank you. terrence allen from the culture association. thank you chair wiener, supervisor kim, supervisor chiu. my comments are very truncated and my apologize if i don't focus on something at great length. with two minutes it's hard to do this. i want to thank your staff especially amy chan for all the work in the community and want to thank supervisors for his continued reminders that there are alcohol serving establishments and to the business owners and neighbors for participate ing
in the process and the captain and jossyln cane for her excellent in the leadership in the entertainment commission. the entertainment commission was to separate enforcement.ey -- i urge supervisors that we don't destroy that important separation of enforcement and granting of permits. with regards to abc and liquor sales. all abc license come out of the box with the current restrictions and it's only through the community process that it's reduced. the abc has a present decoy process by which they arrest and obtain who they are selling and to
minors. i want to recognize the removal of the 180 degree definition. it is a very good compromise to come to a year. the removal of cu entertainment the important. >> thank you, mr. alan. next speaker. >> i would like to pass these out to everybody. also i would like to have an overhead. first i want to point out the concentration of off sale liquor licenses in the san francisco and in particular along polk street. anyway my name is michael nolte the program director of the coalition. our organization is in favor of the 5 year moratorium of all types of liquor licenses within the restrict use district for the
following reasons. the density of establishments of alcohol permits which this map shows. the violent crime that is associated with alcohol and this here map shows here. this is along where the polk street would be. and the property crime which happens again right in here is where polk street is. in order to protect both the tourist and fellow residents according to the pacific institute for research and evaluations strarts -- restaurants with bars and liquor occur the most frequent
list of violent crimes, burglary, theft and other kinds of vandalism. so there is a direct correlation between alcohol sales and crime. thank you. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> overhead please. >> good afternoon supervisor my name is john nolte. we did extensive discussion over 6 months on this topic and on this piece of legislation.
however, a letter and nobody from the leadership of lower polk here and/or the other neighborhood mid polk here either, i'm he at the last minute with more additional amendment. so i'm just going to refer to the map that i do have of lower polk showing the current liquor lbsz and -- license and that is at this area, even though you are going to limit it to the current licenses that are there you have gaps and having those gaps you are affecting these areas.
i want 500 feet so there is no gaps on this legislation. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. president chiu. >> colleagues i have circulated the amendments we have described and they have to be put for consideration next week. >> is that a motion? >> that's a motion. >> that is a motion for the amendment. why don't we take that first. without objection, that would be the order and continue the item in one week. >> we can do that. >> without objection, that is an order.
>> item no. 3. the development rights. >> this is also from president chiu. >> thank you colleagues for consideration of this legislation today. the legislation we have in front of you a mends the control of the transfer of rights in the downtown commercial of zoning district. the goal of the legislation is to create a broader and more transparent market for the sale of development rights between historic properties. achieving will -- permit this in other areas. and projects need to assemble additional far by purchasing tdr from properties. the transfer lot and development loss -- lot in the
same area of the downtown zoning areas it supplies very tight tdr's in the area. the legislation will also make the tdr market transparent. it will amend the requirements for the buildings designated as contributary buildings on the level of the planning code of an inventory buildings eligible for tdr's, buildings where tdr's have been completed and where tdr's were completed within the year. this will allow sponsors eligible for tdr's as well as policy makers and preservationist who maintain the balance of the
tdr's in the local area and revitalize market areas from transfer to that district to other districts with the pros reinvested. the ordinance also makes correction of the timing of this requirement which is codified in another ordinance that a preservation and maintenance plan for buildings preserved under the tdr program when tdr's are sold. i want to take a moment to thank my aid who has been working on this packet on the zoning ordinances and i want to thank livable city for their efforts in this regard. the commission unanimously supported this change to the tdr market would like to invite the planning
staff to say a few words about this measure. >> thank you. earn star from the planning department star. as supervisor chiu state, the planning commission voed unanimously as regarding a piece of legislation introduced by supervisor chiu, this is under phase one to approve phase one on march 1st, 2012, each pc also heard this piece of legislation on january 18, 2012 and also voted unanimously to prove this legislation. we have our assistant administrator here, dan cider. if you have any specific questions about the tdr program, that concludes my remarks. >> our office wasn't offered a briefing on this legislation.
would it be helpful if you can go through the history and also through the c 3 area with a plan. i tried to follow this legislation. it would be helpful to get a visual of the different 3c areas and what is currently on going because i understand the initial objective of, the original restriction which only allowed tdr's within the same district was done to ensure the development wasn't concentrated where everything was going into one area. i'm hoping you can crazy why that's no longer a concern? but it would le helpful to get a visual and an understanding of the history. >> sure. supervisors thank you for the opportunity. dan cider with the department staff. supervisor kim, your question is very on point and forgive me
while i struggle to answer, the most with how it led today with respect to tdr, if we can have the overhead. the screen above you right now is a map of the version of the targeting of the tdr. first i will explain how it functions essentially tdr is based onto the intentional gap between the an allowable height and bulk of a given property and an allowable far. when the 95 downtown plan was put into law, the thinking