Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadway Rud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and owners clash over proposed two-year Broadway alcohol restricted-use district
Summary
Supervisor Chiu's office presented a proposal to bar most new full-liquor establishments on Broadway for two years to reduce crime and attract daytime businesses. Residents largely backed the measure; many property owners and promoters warned it would freeze investment and hurt small business development.
Catherine Rascheber, representing Supervisor David Chiu's office, described legislation to create a two-year Broadway alcohol restricted-use district (RUD) that would bar new on-sale and off-sale liquor establishments on parcels with Broadway frontage between Columbus Avenue and Montgomery Street. Restaurants and beer-and-wine establishments would be allowed, transfers within the district would require a conditional-use permit, and transfers in from outside the RUD would be prohibited. Rascheber said the measure is intended "to address public-safety problems" and to help attract a broader mix of restaurants, cafes and retail.
Commissioners debated the merits and risks. Commissioner Joseph warned of a "slippery slope" and argued Broadway's historic entertainment character could be impaired; Commissioner Hyde countered that Broadway has become homogenized and that the RUD aims to diversify types of businesses rather than eliminate entertainment. Commissioners asked whether the Broadway Community Benefit District (CBD) has concrete recruitment or reuse plans for empty storefronts.
Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Supporters—including the North Beach Business Association and neighborhood residents—said the corridor needs a "breather" to allow daytime-serving businesses to take hold and cited ongoing safety problems, including fights, loitering and drug activity. "With 17 Type 48 licenses on two blocks, there is a saturation that contributes to peace, health and safety problems," one supporter said (paraphrased from testimony).
Opponents included property owners and some restaurateurs who said the RUD would be anti-business and could freeze investments already in process; Jordan Engel, a building owner, said the proposal felt punitive and described stalled renovation work and threats to his family's livelihood. "What the CBD and this legislation is doing, in my opinion, is anti business," Engel said.
Speakers also raised technical concerns about the draft: whether abandonment-of-use provisions could lock large vacant spaces into noncommercial uses, how transfers of existing licenses would be handled, and whether a two-year sunset could later be extended. The commissioners did not take a formal position at this informational hearing; staff and the commission said they would monitor the proposal and further discuss the neighborhood's redevelopment plans.
The item was presented for information only; no vote was taken. Commissioners encouraged more specific CBD proposals explaining how vacancy and reuse would be addressed and asked city staff to brief them if the Board of Supervisors advances the ordinance.
