or something. if we're talking about increased density near transit, which -- which has been expressed as a desirable goal and -- i think we all support that, i think when -- when people who have not confronted that and hear those terms they think there's going to be a -- a high-rise coming into their neighborhood for example. it doesn't have to be that drastic. something, when you think about increased density and you have a single family house, even if they're attached, there's a fear i think about what that really means. and where. obviously, we're not going to, i don't think we're suggesting that -- depositsity is going to suddenly plop down in the mits of a nice neighborhood. so some of the comments i think -- i think sara made with respect to where they might be in that -- that could be priorityized along rail lines. it doesn't have to be heavy

rail, in my mind. so, that might be -- might be a way to -- to pain begin and educational program or however, you want to characterize it, i don't know if we want to get to the point where we we may want to avoid specific san francisco streets for example. buildings along geary from van ness to the beach. they were really pushing that concept, which was ridiculous in the extreme.

i view the housing element as a policy document, and i like the fact that you have in there housing elements that provide the policy background, because that's exactly what it is. it is not implementation. goals, objectives, it is not regulations, not ordinances, not codes. it is not that specificity at all. i have been hearing from a number of people who either want or do not want that type of specificity. it doesn't belong in a policy document as far as i am concerned, and i will push not to have that in there. i don't think it belongs in there. it is a policy document for a very, very diverse city. it's diverse in its topography, it's diverse in its neighborhoods, and it's diverse in the history of its neighborhoods. san francisco is not density or

otherwise what it was 50 years ago. it's not what it was 79 years ago when i was born. it's not what it was before that. it's not going to be that 50 and 75 years from now. and i think we have to realize that. but i think we have to have policies in place that will allow for logical changes. commercial corridors aren't the same as they used to be either. industrial, p.d.r., these are all changing, they're all moving. a policy document allows for a logical plan to be involved and allows for the specificity to come into being. and if we get beyond that, we're never going to have a document that works. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: just a follow-up mostly for mr. edelman, but you were all very happy with the successes of hope

six and looking forward to the successes of hope s.f. i guess we kind of like to have a look at the whole public housing issue regionally, and i don't expect an answer today. but as part of the whole presentation, i mean, we have to look at this thing and see which direction it's going. i'm sure that because i think a lot of progress is being made and hopefully we can continue to move in that direction and making sure that needs throughout the bay area are also being met by other municipalities and other counties to deal with housing problems in their areas regarding public housing and section 8, which they talked about a little bit in the presentation that we had. so i really don't need an answer for that today, but i'd just appreciate it if you have anything. but i know that's a big question. just wanted to bring it out there to see where you were on it. >> specifically on the regional approach, or regarding -- well, let me start with san francisco. i think you know we were before you a few months ago.

commissioner antonini: yes, it's very promising. >> it's under way now. hope s.f. has five active projects, two of which are at the planning department and have begun their environmental review process. that's sunnydale and pa trer row. the two largest sites. dd sunnydale is in, i believe, with an environmental application for somewhere in the range of 1,700 total units, and patrero around 1,600 total units. very substantial increase in housing. most importantly, i will point out including one-for-one replacement of the public housing and new affordable housing. so we are excited. alice griffith is likely to be the next site to actually move after hunter's view, because financing is specifically tied

to the candle stick point development. the alice griffith plan, i believe, calls for approximately 1,000 new units of housing, including a replacement of the 250 units that are there currently. so we're very excited about what we're doing in san francisco around public housing. it's a real model that we think there's a lot of lessons learned, both positive and negative from our history and the history around the country, making sure that we stay true to the public housing assets that are so critical in a high-cost city such as san francisco, and make sure that we replace those units themselves, not just vouchers, number one, but take our opportunity, which is somewhat unique to san francisco, and the fact that we have additional development capacity on the sites that are so poorly planned historically and use that to, number one, create better neighborhoods, mixed income neighborhoods, and

actually use that additional capacity as a financial mechanism to stimulate the revitalization and actually pay for some public housing replacement. regionally, h.u.d. continues to kind of drive the train on that. and there are two really critical pieces of -- or critical programs that have been proposed by this current administration. the first is choice neighborhoods, which the administration foresees as the next generation of hope 6. interestingly enough, it's extremely well-aligned. i think not coincidentally, with hope s.f. a lot of the problematic concepts we've come with in hope s.f. so we're very excited about that. in fact, my friends at the redevelopment agency are hard at work as we speak working on an application for $31 million of choice neighborhoods funding for alice griffith, which would be a very important kick start to

getting that project moving. so we're excited about that. we will be going for a $22 million hope fix grant that we're be applying for in november for hunter's view for the second and third phase of hunter's view. so i mentioned the choice neighborhoods program from a policy perspective. second, another very significant proposal that will have big impacts nationwide is called t.r.a., or transforming rental assistance. and the intent is to allow housing authorities with public housing to convert the -- both the real estate and financial structure of the existing public housing to something akin to project-based section 8 financing. so it would allow for capitalization and refinancing of those sites and touching on what i mentioned before, the leveraging of existing other financing programs, such as tax credits and tax exempt bonds.

a model that has worked very well. six developments and in limited opportunities elsewhere around the country and trying to figure out a way to move beyond the chronic underfunding of the capital and operating of public housing. and use creative market-driven disciplines that have existing track records such as the section 8 program, which for some time now conventional lenders have been willing to lend against. so it's a little bit of the landscape that's going on regionally within the bay area. i can't speak so much to -- i mean, we're continually having conversations with our sister agencies across the area. and unfortunately, continually competing for the same dollars as well. commissioner antonini: that's true. but since housing is a regional problem, i'm hoping that they're all moving forward in the same direction on this. i think what's really significant with hunter's view, patrrero, and griffith, is the

blend of the public housing with other affordable housing with market rate housing, and it's going to help to finance that. but it's also going to make it the kind of thing we try to do with inclusionary housing, kind of doing it in the reverse direction, but what we're doing is taking something that was not inclusionary and making it inclusionary. i think that's going to be a big success. so i appreciate that concept, and it sounds like this t.r.a. where there may be some tenant ownership involved in it, i'm not sure if that applies, is another good concept. thank you. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would hope that draft one and draft two do move more closely together, and i hope that in response to what the state is asking for, some of those questions can be answered. there's a physical component to it. that is identifying sides and specific locations. overlaying that, planned transportation and other improvements.

we can then go back and answer questions which mr. edelman very eloquently outlined. somehow plugging numbers and facts into something which everybody only hears as words, but not as specific physical manifestations of what's already going on. so if you would have clarified physically manifest what's really going on, many of the unanswered questions perhaps can come closer together and drafts one and two can stand more closely with each other. and then indeed i would think it is a policy-driven document, but perhaps we can bridge the gap between policy and actual physical doing in a better way. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i actually feel a little bit different. i think that the problem with the document is that it says everything and it says nothing. i mean, i think why don't we look at it like the better streets plan, or even like the mission street escape plan. we have to have -- we have to choose -- we have to take a position on those priority

principles that are most important to us. it doesn't mean that we have to zone a spot in the richmond or 70 feet or something. it doesn't mean that. we need to decide what our most important principles and values are and make the document about that. this is not a rezoning document. and it shouldn't be a rezoning document. it should be like our better streets plan and so many of our other apology -- policy plans and statements about what we want to see and envision for san francisco and get away from trying to take everybody's input and make this giant document that honestly doesn't really actually speak to what our priorities are because they conflict each other throughout because we, on the one hand, want to support ccnr and on the other hand we don't. we have to take a position. and maybe you can work with the community action board that was convened, but we just have to figure out what our highest priority values are as a city, but make it clear that we're not imposing anything on any particular neighborhood. we're saying that when we're

looking at a project -- i mean, we've never had a project up here that i can remember that we've said, oh, well, this project, you know, priority principles says we must take it higher. i mean, we didn't do that. there were other considerations for how we arrived upon supporting or not supporting a project. the priority principles were part of it, but it wasn't everything. i think that people have to remember that, that part of this is we all will make decisions and the neighborhood context on the project will happen. zoning will happen, yes, all that sort of stuff. but again, taking into consideration transit, development, all those sort of things, our priority principles. i think we need to be really clear about what those are. so anybody who picks up this document from any of the other 57 other counties in california or even in the other counties in the bay area that we want to influence, so that we're just clear.

president miguel: director? >> thank you. sara asked me to kind of wrap up on what we heard here today and make comments about where we're going to head. because clearly, i think as commissioner sugaya pointed out, not everyone is going to be happy with what we do. in fact, if everybody is, i'm not sure we did the right job. i do think the two issues that kirsten started out with are very important to reiterate. the kind of conflicts, if you will, or the balance that we're trying to strike. one between community planning process and growth, and one between neighborhood preservation and growth. and the thirds is a format issue which is how specifically does it get versus how general does it get. and we are frankly getting pulled in both directions. san francisco is the only place i know where the general plan reads like code.

i think that gets us into trouble. everyone assumes that it's code. i think that is a real dilemma that we face in this city, when we do develop these kind of policy documents. frankly, i think the housing element should be two pages. that isn't going to happen. so what we are challenged with is figuring out how to balance those two things between a level of specificity that you can feel comfortable with, and a level of generality that keeps it a policy level document. having said that, i just wanted to clarify a few things. the housing element does not use the word transit. it doesn't propose those things. it does not even suggest that areas of the city be rezoned. it does not recommend increased density or eliminating parking spaces or increased heights. it simply says that when we consider those kinds of code changes, there needs to be a community planning project. and that is, i think, a legitimate way and it reflects

what we have actually done in this department. that if we make those kind of major policy changes and zoning changes that affect areas of the city, we have to do a process. so what we are faced with at this point is an interesting dilemma, because we cannot be at this for another year. and we have to bring this to a close. h.c.d. is already very concerned about how long this has taken and it's very important for us to bring this to a close. i will do my best to lead an effort to have these discussions, and i agree with some of the comments made, that some of these things are not easily discussed in this type of format. with three minutes per person and all that. it's not an easy thing to do to have a true discussion. obviously it can't be done. so we will do our best to try to maneuver some discussions and enable some discussions where we can have meaningful dialogue. the other thing that i think we need to do is have a serious discussion about what is

appropriately in the housing element and what is part of all the other work that the department and the city does. so many of the issues i hear raised in this context have nothing to do with the housing element. they have to do with concerns about d.r., concerns about density or too low a density or too high a density. that is not an issue for the housing element. they are issues about our ore work and our other items that we deal with on a daily basis. i think it's incumbent upon us to be very clear about where those issues lie, where that work plan item exists, and separate that from the discussion on the housing elm. so with that, thank you for all your comments. and we will do our best to move this thor ward and expeditiously. president miguel: thank you. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: thank you for those comments. my comments weren't directed toward or including what i was saying as examples in tell lt. it was just a suggestion, if we were going back to the public or something like that.

i'd like to have it as -- general is the wrong word. but as policy-based as commissioner miguel said and as you said, not to make it too specific. so i'm completely onboard with that. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: why not take landmark projects and abstract them to be reflective of what constitutes policy and what constitutes the essence of consensus building in san francisco. i think there is enough meat in those projects to abstract them and view them as case studies for what's required in the housing element. >> thank you, commissioners. with that, we'll move forward. we are now in item 12.

1684 sacramento street, also known as 1552 polling street. -- polk street. >> good evening, commissioners. the request today is a conditional use authorization request to add liquor sales to an existing convenience store. a recent survey found eight establishments within blocks of the subject's property. there are also significant numbers of bars and restaurants selling liquor in the immediate vicinity and in clusters throughout the polk street corridor. the department is concerned about the degradation of life. neighborhood commercial

districts are crafted to create a fine grain mix of small scale uses without allowing sangle type of use to dominate. adding new liquor sales would exacerbate the uses in this area. it should be noted that in 2006 and again in 2009, this commission rejected a previous request to add liquor sales to this establishment. the mayor's office and police department have indicated that they do not support this application. the project sponsor has submitted a petition in support of the proposed use with approximately 500 suggests and has -- signatures and has had support from organization such as the alliance for a better district six, and central city democrats. staff has also received numerous communications in opposition to the conditional use request from individuals in the area and organization such as the middle polk neighborhood association, the lower polk neighbors, the

pacific neighbors negotiation. included in your packet is a petition with approximately 85 signatures. at this time, i'd like to pass out some additional all rights that were -- additional letters that were submitted after publication of the staff report. staff believes this cannot be considered necessary or desirable. planning department staff recommends that the commission disapprove the proposed prong. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the sponsor and owner of

the store. this is my third time coming here. last year, you mentioned that if i come up with, like, 20%, close at 9:00, you might consider approving. it's a convenience store, we only have, like, 20% of the space for alcoholic beverages. 20% are like groceries and soft drinks and ice creams and sandwiches, and the convenience store cannot survive without alcoholic beverages like beerk wine, liquor. we are not asking for half of the space. we are only asking for, like, 20% or less, like a shelf or two. i am only asking for this section here, which is a wall section for liquor, over here, like a small section for wine. over here, like, three doors.

the count of like 20 doors for coolers, only three doors for beer. that might not cause even a problem -- that's not even noticeable. it's not a liquor store. it's just a beverage store that sells alcoholic beverages on the side. we agree to close at 9:00. we only need to generate revenue to pay employees, like i have like three of them in that location. we have to pay rent, taxes, pg&e. this is the last time me coming here rm i've been trying like three times already. the people protest against me. across the street, when i first applied, it was for both of them. i applied -- only had like 10%

of the whole space. which is back on polk street across the street from this proposed location. i only had like 10%. those people who protested, they only protest against. they did not say anything about beverages. the people who protest are far away from the location. either lower pole exor bush street. i work in the neighborhood for 18 years. i've never seen a violent crime. i'm there, like, seven days a week. i appreciate your help. thank you very much. we cannot survive. we will have to close it and cut

like three employees. what i'm saying here is that people who protest, sorry to repeat myself. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. we have heard about this location before. there will be a two-minute time limit. gretchen, robert, and daniel.

>> commissioners, thank you for having me. my name is gretchen larcenien. i live in -- larsen. there are some places in san francisco, there's starbucks and a pizza on every corner. it seems like in my area, it's noted for a bar or a beverage liquor store on every corner. i think that's really sad. i've lived in the area for about 30 years, and when i first came here, my home had availability in two blocks, to walk to two places where i could buy liquor. now in near my home, i can walk two blocks and there are nine places where i might obtain liquor. i don't know where it is. i don't make those decisions. and it's the third time this store has applied to sell

spirits. he's been turned down, or they've been turned down before. i see no need, in my opinion, for another store to sell liquor. i also am terribly against having any amount of his store being approved to be able to sell liquor. somehow once liquor gets in, it becomes a liquor store. you don't go in there to buy health bars or health drinks. you go in to buy liquor. and i understand there is an economic need for him and that's unfortunately out of my purview. polk street for a long time has had -- especially middle polk, they've had broadway kind of come up sometimes and the nicer areas, and we've sort of been caught if the middle of sutter street coming up. we're sort of in the middle. i notice now down on my street, i live on sacramento, that people are sleeping on the

streets, urinating on the streets. thank you very much. it's a very nice play to live. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i live in the knobb hill area. i am here to support the liquor license. they have maintained a business for over 15 years. employing people from the neighborhood, many who are disabled or senior citizens with. the unemployment rate over 10% and an underemployment rate of close to 20%, here is a man willing to put his money at risk in order to grow his business.

i would think you would want to encourage competition by letting his neighbors determine whether he will be successful or not. one of the things that concerns me is the number of businesses in this area that have been closed or shuttered for a year if not two years. some never even opened like the royal theatre. recently the closing of a hallmark store and bob's diner. the thing that should concern you is that in the 40 years i've representived here in san francisco, i've worked for three major corporations that no longer reside in san francisco. fireman's insurance. bank of america. after the great earthquake and fire had a desk put out in front of his bank to give loans to people so they could rebuild san francisco. the bank that he loves is now in the carolinas. and pacific bell, who i worked r