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 for in 20 years who in the 1990's is bought by s.b.c., the smallest of the seven regional operating companies because of a more favorable business climate in texas. so what we're doing here is instead of encouraging businesses and trying to get people to invest their own money and grow revenue here, we're

discouraging business. i don't think we need one more business closed in that area. thank you. president miguel: thank you. daniel faxon. newman. michael. >> i'm here to support nicklas and his endeavor to acquire even a minimum of 20% or 30% access to sell alcoholic beverages. i've known him 18 years. i've seen his other stores, his customers. he keeps a clean place. it's safe. he employs locals. you never feel there's any loitering or graffiti on any of his businesses. he immediately tidies them up. there are a lot of liquor outlets in our neighborhood, but they seem to be springing up all the time.

and he, who has an established relationship with all the other businesses in the neighborhood, can't seem to get that little kick, which he needs. because just the selling of cigarettes or lottery tickets or gum is just not enough to cut it. anyway, thank you. president miguel: thank you. newman, michael, shawn. >> i'm michael, but i'm on the next item, item 13. president miguel: excuse me. >> i'm shawn, i own a few properties within a block of the proposed liquor store. this is the third time i've been here over so many years. when he started -- before he

opened this liquor store, it was a plant store. i don't remember what it was before. none of the neighbors were particularly thrilled about it being a liquor store and we fought it. he knew it wouldn't be a liquor store when he opened it up. there's too many liquor stores, as everybody has said before. it doesn't do any benefit to the neighborhood to have another liquor store other than to profit the owner of the liquor store himself. there's a dozen bars, as i said, nine liquor stores. and we don't need more. i understand it's not easy, but there were a lot there before he got there and we just don't need anymore. i also urge you not to fall for the ploy of 20%. once there's liquor in the store, it's a liquor store. 20% can go all the way up to the ceiling. that's 12 feet. a few unsquare feet just for liquor as well as the beer cabinets. it's just not needed. thank you very much.

president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon. i live between polk and parking. i think there's entirely too much saturation of alcohol-dispensing businesses there. certainly from where i live, there's no less than six places i can go to and purchase alcohol to take home within four blocks and at least three of them sell until 2:00 in the morning. this is just totally not counting all the bars, all the restaurant bars or beer and wine bars, and as for violence, well, there is violence that is attributed to alcohol. just like night, last evening, early morning, there was a brawl on polk involving eight or nine people. the cops were called.

people were arrested. and i'll tell you what, that fight didn't begin because someone was too sober. that fight began because of alcohol. i don't know that i can agree with the assertion that there's no violence on polk or violence related to alcohol. that's it. thank you for your time. president miguel: thank you. erica, paul. >> hello, i am erica byrne. i live nearby on knobb hill. both of the groups that i am a member of have been working really hard to make the sidewalks of san francisco more pedestrian friendly. one of the ways to do that is to

put more eyes on the street, more pedestrians. and one of the tips and tricks of doing that is to ensure that identical businesses are at least two blocks apart. if you look at the saturation of liquor stores, nobody has to walk even one block to get their liquor. so for that reason i would like to oppose the addition of another liquor store at that location. the bargain bank was mentioned. when it started out, it was a good addition for-to-the neighborhood, but it gradually added more and more and more liquor and all of a sudden, it was a liquor store. i don't remember there being any notice given to the neighborhood that the bank was going to turn into a liquor store. so we would have opposed the bargain bank, but we didn't know it was going to turn into a liquor store. thank you. president miguel: thank you.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is paul wormer. i live on the other side of the hill on california street. this is an area i walk to regularly. i do want to note that in my neighborhood, we've seen the corner convenience store morph to the corner liquor store. still licensed as the convenience store. they had a liquor license as part of that. and it became dominant in their business. i absolutely endorse the position staff has taken in opposing this. this is a general principle issue. it's a city wide issue of having unexpected or morphing of uses in a way that are inappropriate, and i believe that liquor is one of the big areas where that happens. thank you.

president miguel: thank you. >> my name is michael nulty. the owner already owns a property on -- already runs a business at knobb hill liquors. his proposed other business, which is here for you today, is here. and this market is beginning to be probably closed at the end of the year. and so there's one last liquor license.

this is a letter from the police department where a decoy has gone into his existing business, and there was no problem. i'm trying to point out that he's a good business owner. he doesn't allow under 21-year-olds to come in and buy liquor. and this is dated january 25, 2010. i also want to point out that i'm one of the founding members of the north america business association, and we do support the position of authorization. not all these problems about people vomiting or pianoing or pooing that people bring up say that's all contributing. what's in frnt of you today is whether or not to allow the conditional use and that's it. i don't know if there's any

representation -- person here from the police department saying that. so thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening. my name is tony. i just want to let you know i echo what the previous speaker has said and i strongly support knobb hill beverages number two. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. this is the third time i've come in front of your commission about this. i keep coming back because this is what the community planned, and a lot of the people there

are here weren't even planning a session just to discuss how to plan this neighborhood. i get really concerned about when people don't want to take control of their neighborhood and go to the planning processes that the city provides to deal with this neighborhood. and you see, this is where his property is right here on this map. and this is how it's zoned and everything else. my name is john nulty. this project should move forward with additional use. since it's closing nearby next year. this location will fulfill the void left by the closure. approve the conditional use for this project. thank you very much. michael vick mig thank you. -- president miguel: thank you.

>> hello. i'm joyce louis. i am a longtime resident of the area, for over 40 years. i have seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood. that area that you were just talking about at 1685 sacramento, i remember it as the brownie hardware store, which moved across the street. these changes have been in the demographics and business, both good and not so good. in response to the conditional use application for the liquor license, i oppose this action. stores are selling liquor for off-premises consumption within a four block radius. in addition, there is a bar right next door. so there's always access. i personally oppose any more access to liquor, as this is related to crime and it decreases the quality of life in the neighborhood. we are trying to revive and maintain the area to make it a

more safe and family-oriented area. so having another site for liquor sales goes against the core of maintaining the neighborhood's safe and family-oriented. the planning commission's consideration and denial of this application would be appreciated. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is anthony. i manage the property directly above the proposed site. i would like to support him. he's done nothing but improve the quality of that corner. he's added a lot of lighting for security. i know that the sale of alcoholic beverages can result in violence on the streets. i feel that happens at around -- between the hours of 2:00 and 4:00 in the morning when the barses let out. he's proposing staying open until 9:00. i think that's a good idea

because he wouldn't be connected with the violence on the street. it has been happening, but i think that that's a result of people getting drunk and coming over to the doughnut shop we have right across the street, which is wonderful. in terms of over-saturation of businesses, liquor-wise, i think people should be given the option of shopping there. he's given local jobs to local people. he's been very friendly. he keeps the place very clean. and i just think he should be given the opportunity at this point. i know he's been denied before, but i think it's about time that he be given the chance to prosper. and i think the people who oppose him are a little afraid of the competition. so i do support him. president miguel: thank you. michael, anthony, wiley, rebecca.

>> commissioners, i live on clay for the past 13 years. i have a lifestyle-based business, meaning i work at home. i walk my dogs three times a day. so i know the neighborhood pretty well, ok? if you can take a look at this map, everybody has been referencing the eight liquor stores that are around the proposed knobb hill beverages. these stores are open anywhere from 8:00 in the morning -- basically you can get liquor in my neighborhood 24 hours a day, seven days a week. if you can't get liquor after 2:00 a.m., you got a problem. russian hill neighbors, lower polk neighborhoods, they have all submitted neighborhoods. all submitted neighborhoods. pana's board, 27 people