Comments on Premises Expansion

Comments received during the week of October 30 to November 5, 2022.

Comment #71, #72

Hello,

I am emailing you to urge you not to put additional restrictions on alcohol sales and consumption in parklets that adds unnecessary burden on operators. The parklets at bars and restaurants have been working wonderfully and safely under their current regulations and have been wildly popular with patrons. I love outdoor dining!

Our restaurants need help to make a full recovery from the pandemic, not additional financial burdens. Any regulations that require additional staff in order to comply with these proposed regulations—like those proposed in section 70(d)(1),(3),(5),(6), and (7)—could cause the closure of businesses still trying to recover.

Please do not impose these burdensome regulations.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #73

As a longtime SF Bay Area resident who has enjoyed many of the outdoor dining and bars in parklets and patios during the pandemic, many with live music, supporting our local restaurant workers and musicians during the pandemic, paragraph 3 of this regulation puts undue burden on the restaurants and bars. It is not practical to not allow patrons to not be able to order a drink (often with food) at the bar or take out counter and not be able to take their drink (and food) to the outdoor dining area, which are located often just across the sidewalk in the parklet or adjacent in the parking lot or patio in a clearly defined area.

And paragraph 6 which does not allow the restaurant or bar to have a bar counter or take out counter to sell drinks outdoor further restricts flow of patrons.

The ABC and state should be making it easier not harder for restaurants and bars to do business, as many of them were shut during the early part of the pandemic and are only just getting back on their feet. And they are often what drives the success of main streets and business districts, especially with the rise of Amazon and on line retailing resulting in many commercial district retail vacancies.

Please consider deleting paragraphs 3 and 6 as highlighted below

Thank you and Best Regards

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #74, #75, #76, #77, #78, #79, #80, #81, #82, #83

Hello,

Please do not impose these burdensome regulations.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #84

Good Afternoon,

I am submitting a letter on behalf of the San Francisco Travel Association in regards to the newly proposed ABC regulations around outdoor dining.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

The referenced attachment is not available here as it was not provided in a format that meets the WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines for accessibility. Please email RPU@abc.ca.gov to request the attachment as a PDF document. You may visit our Accessibility page for more information.

Comment #85, #86, #87, #88, #89, #90

Hello,

Please do not impose these burdensome regulations.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #91

Good afternoon,

Please find attached a letter from San Francisco Mayor London Breed, and the San Francisco Economic and Workforce Development comments on the proposed rulemaking on licensing of permanent non-contiguous areas.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #92

Good afternoon –

On behalf of the business improvement districts throughout California, represented by the California Downtown Association, please find the public comment letter regarding ABC’s “premise expansion” and “non-contiguous areas” proposed regulations. If you should have any questions, please contact me.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #95, #96

Hello,

Please do not impose these burdensome regulations.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #97

Please see the attached letter from the Walnut Creek Downtown Association we are submitting for public comment, for today’s hearing (November 1).

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #98

Greetings,

Attached is a letter detailing our concerns over the proposed regulation concerning premises expansion. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this rulemaking process.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions about our statement.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #99

To Whom it May Concern,

My name is Maria Davis and I own a small, neighborhood bar in Bernal Heights, San Francisco called St Mary’s pub. St. Mary’s has been open since 1933 and we are the oldest ‘post-prohibition’ bar operating in San Francisco. During the pandemic we were able to have a few small tables in front of the bar, allowing us to have outdoor business as part of the shared spaces program. Having the ability to serve alcohol in this space is what undoubtedly saved my business from closing. Even though business operations have returned to ‘normal’, our financial state is still in jeopardy. Fortunately, keeping our outdoor seating has helped speed our financial recovery.

Like I said, we are a small neighborhood bar, and only have one person working at a time during many of our operational hours. The proposed regulation that requires a server to transport alcoholic beverages in and out of the indoor bar is not possible for us. Therefore, would not allow us to continue to participate in the shared spaces program. It’s unclear to me how a server commuting alcohol in and out would illuminate any of the problems that it may occur without one. We have enjoyed nearly two years that have been relatively problem-free, allowing the customer to transport their own drinks in and out of the designated outdoor area. I feel that restaurants and larger establishments are getting preferential treatment in this scenario. Please consider removing this portion of the proposed regulations.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #100

Please see attached for comment letter from Wine institute regarding ABC’s proposed premises expansion regulation.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #101

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #102

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of Downtown SLO, the Downtown San Luis Obispo Business Association, I’m writing to express our concerns and recommendations related to the Alcoholic Beverage Control’s proposed regulations regarding “Premises Expansion” – specifically for outdoor alcohol service in “non-contiguous areas.” The City of San Luis Obispo recently adopted a permanent parklet program, which we support, and these new regulations would greatly impact our members in the restaurant, food service, bars, and nightlife venues within our downtowns. Our businesses are still attempting to recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic, facing continuing labor shortages and, due to inflation, ever-rising costs of operating these venues. We implore you to reconsider the newly restrictive regulations for alcoholic beverage services.

The proposed regulations raise several areas of concern for restaurants including:

Requirements around Transporting Alcoholic Beverages:

Under the proposed Section 70(d)(3), patrons would be prohibited from walking across a public sidewalk with an alcoholic beverage to bring it from inside a business to a parklet. Note, a parklet is defined as an area located in the street that is specifically permitted for commercial use per the local jurisdiction. IF adopted, this rule would present severe challenges to restaurants already navigating dire staffing shortages and high labor costs as they struggle to rebound from the pandemic. Faced with this requirement, many counter-service restaurants and bars would likely be forced to end their outdoor dining or drinking operations entirely. This could cause these businesses to close, or at a minimum, to significantly lose business and staff. We respectfully recommended that this proposed section be removed or to work with the state legislature to amend open-container laws to narrowly exempt this conduct.

Active Monitoring Obligation:

Section 70(d)(1) would require that a “non-contiguous area must be actively monitored at all times license privileges are being exercised.” This definition also states that “a portion of the non-contiguous licensed area shall be visible and observable, without obstruction, from the interior of the primary or main area of the licensed premises.” The requirements around active monitoring as written in this section would prevent many businesses from offering outdoor alcohol service. Most parking spaces do not directly align with storefront property lines, resulting in parklets that are at least somewhat offset from a licensee’s storefront. We respectively recommend that the definition of “actively monitored” be amended to establish that, where a business is unable to meet the requirements around visibility, it may satisfy this obligation through alternative approaches to monitoring, which could include regular table service, monitoring by door staff or other personnel, electronic monitoring, or other practices.

Discretion to Require Barriers:

Section 70(d)(5) states that the non-contiguous area must be visibly delineated in a manner prescribed by the Department such that any person where alcoholic beverages can be served or consumed.
Historically, ABC has often required or sought to require businesses to install hard physical barriers round outdoor alcohol service areas. A hard barrier requirement could effectively eliminate outdoor alcohol service for many or most businesses, as it would be impossible or prohibitively expensive for businesses to install these barriers. A physical barrier would also likely conflict with local parklet design guidelines, including local requirements around accessibility for disabled patrons and life safety personnel. We respectfully recommend adding language to this section to ensure that: 1) ABC shall not prescribe the installation of hard physical barriers for the purpose of clear delineation of a non- contiguous area; and 2) ABC shall not require any barrier or delineation that would conflict with local design guidelines, accessibility, or life safety requirements.

Shared Outdoor Area Privileges

Section 70(d)(6) would prohibit two restaurant licensees or two bar licensees from sharing space if only one of them is permitted to sell spirits. By forcing licensees to operate separate outdoor spaces, the proposed rules will add needless expenses for small businesses. For some locations, splitting shared outdoor areas into individual ones or establishing two parklets adjacent to each other will be impossible. We respectfully recommend removing this section. Where appropriate on a case-by-case basis, ABC staff can impose conditions on shared outdoor spaces to ensure that each licensee fulfills its obligations around alcohol sales and service.

Definition of “Open and Operating:”

The proposed definition of “open and operating” in Section 70(d)(7) is not clear whether an outdoor area is “open and operating” if an employee is inside the business preparing for food service that will occur in the outdoor area once the business opens. Similarly, if an employee brings used dishware inside the business after the end of outdoor operations but is still cleaning those dishes, it is not clear if the outdoor area is still “open and operating.” We respectfully recommend revising the definition to clarify precisely when the business remains
responsible for activity in the outdoor area.

Downtown SLO is a member of the California Downtown Association, which has sent a similar letter. CDA represents thousands of diversified businesses throughout California within its network of downtown associations, cities and business districts.

We look forward to working with the Alcoholic Beverage Control, the State Legislature and the
Governor’s Office in ensuring state policy supports the continued recovery of our downtowns.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #103

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.

Comment #104

Hello,

Please find the attached letter from Senator Wiener, Assembly member Gabriel and Assembly member Haney regarding the proposed regulations for the Premises Expansion rulemaking

Comments on Premises Expansion

Comment #71, #72

ABC Response

Comment #73

ABC Response

Comment #74, #75, #76, #77, #78, #79, #80, #81, #82, #83

ABC Response

Comment #84

ABC Response

Comment #85, #86, #87, #88, #89, #90

ABC Response

Comment #91

ABC Response

Comment #92

ABC Response

Comment #95, #96

ABC Response

Comment #97

ABC Response

Comment #98

ABC Response

Comment #99

ABC Response

Comment #100

ABC Response

Comment #101

ABC Response

Comment #102

ABC Response

Comment #103

ABC Response

Comment #104

ABC Response

Late Comment #105

ABC Response

Late Comment #106

ABC Response

Campaigns

Media

Support

External

TRACE

LEAD

Google Translate