Comments on Premises Expansion

Comment #2

Per the proposed regulatory action on licensing of non-contiguous areas, two comments:

1. Could the rules clarify the licensee’s obligation AND authority to enforce open-container laws around non-contiguous permitted space?

Many of the new non-contiguous spaces are outdoors and in formerly public areas. I.e., our proposed non-contiguous space (parklet) is situated between a public sidewalk and a “slow street” in San Francisco where there can be quite a few pedestrians. Said pedestrians are not infrequently walking with open containers from home, nearby stores, or even our premises, which may sell factory-sealed beverages to go.

Employees monitoring our space will often ask folks who stop to chat or listen to music to “keep moving” please, to not gather, particularly if they have an open container — at least within 5 or 10 feet or so of our space. That’s usually no problem on the sidewalk, where it’s clearer that folks shouldn’t block others; and during the pandemic, not gathering for public health reasons was generally understood. But on the slow street and on neighboring property we are sometimes challenged by folks claiming that they are on public property, or they live a few doors down, and thus we have no authority to tell them to move on or to not drink whatever beverage they wish. Though for every neighbor who might resent our presumption there are also neighbors that appreciate our efforts.

So, could you clarify: do we have an obligation to police around our outdoor spaces, how far would that extend; and do we have any authority besides “neighborly good will”?

2. Could the rules carve out an exception for the presence of babies in arms/strollers outdoors for type 48s?

This may be beyond the scope of this regulatory action. But as a type 48 licensee I cannot tell you how frequently we must tell parents with babies to leave our sidewalk tables, and how deeply unpopular and incomprehensible the rule is, particularly for tourists.

One of the fantastic aspects of the TCA action is the unifying impact outdoor spaces can have on a neighborhood — that adults enjoying an alcoholic beverage are not behind closed doors but visible as friends, neighbors, and (99% of the time) serving as fine role models on responsible consumption in the community. It’s very natural for parents out with babies to want to stop, socialize, and enjoy a drink given the community feel. That this could lead to a corrupting influence on the baby, or intoxication of the baby, is unthinkable; it requires a particularly puritanical/cynical imagination to approach such an idea.

Perhaps such an exception would be limited to the non-contiguous (outdoor) areas — ie, babes in arms are never allowed in the main premises, as before. But in the case of non-contiguous outdoor areas, which tend to have limited hours driven by daylight etc., babes in arms are not against the law.

ABC Response

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

Comment #3

Family Winemakers of California, primarily representing small, family owned, premium wine producers, is in support of the proposed regulations governing the licensing of permanent non-contiguous areas within which alcoholic beverages are served for consumption within reasonable proximity to a primarily licensed premise.

Clearly, this proposal has been successfully tested during the pandemic and was an important aspect of the economic survival for many businesses.

Thank you for your forward looking proposal.

ABC Response

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