contextuallized. i think you changed some material on the facade. there's an historic building adjacent to it that's smaller and more of the cottage vernacular. i could think of ways to change the project architecturally. i think there's ways to talk about this project and engage people who live in this neighborhood to figure it out. i think we're being -- gun is being put to our head, which is not comfortable. i don't think there was a full engagement on this project as we would like to see. >> commissioner koppel: we saw two projects tonight. one that was almost a no-brainer. zero units to four. our next item was on saturn. almost equal size house, one

unit. so that was almost just as easy as a decision for us. this is not as much of a no-brainer because there's an existing house there. but one thing that pops up in my mind is the proximity to bart and the fact that for planning purposes, we should be densifying near the bart stations. it doesn't have a four-car garage or anything like that. it's a four-unit building, which is -- if you think about it, it will make it more affordable than it would be if it stays as-is. and proximity to bart is putting me over the fence on this one. it wouldn't be the end of the world if it was continued, but i'm supporting the project

as-is. >> commissioner richards: we talked last night and we talked about the dominos falling and this will be the first of the entire street and then there goes the entire street. and i asked you to provide us with a look at what the street looks like even though i've been there. this would be for the rest of the commissioners. and you said you would. can you help us out by showing us what the context is? >> can you go to the overhead? there was a comment at the last hearing by one of the commissioners that led to the conversation -- commissioner richards asked if tearing this down would have a domino effect on the street that we would be losing either historic housing or rent-controlled housing or both. and there's a chart showing the other units on the street. by the other units, i mean this.

this is the unit in question that we're talking about today. this one is the corner and the one next to it and the single-family home that we're talking about here today. what this chart shows and i have surveys for the planning department, historic surveys, that every building on this block, other than the small one right here, but every other building is rent-condition -- controlled or historic. it's my belief and your commission has said this over and over, where there's a rent-controlled building or a building with historic nature to it, it will not be something that the commission will be allowing to be demolished. >> commissioner richards: you mentioned housing accountability act, i believe.

is it your understanding that rent-controlled buildings would be allowed to be demolished under housing accountability act if their supplanted with more units? >> the building question today is not rent-controlled, but i don't know -- i've read the housing accountability act. i don't know whether use of it would allow the demolition -- whether the city would be liable under it for saying we won't demolish if there's a multiunit building. i don't think you are liable if you refuse to demolish a multiunit, rent-controlled building. that could create a finding that you could make that's not in the health and safety and in the best interests of the public. that's a finding that i think would work.

i don't think findings on turning down this project as proposed are easy to make under the housing accountability act. >> commissioner richards: my fear is, and i made the motion it approve this, if we went this way and the dominos started to fall and we get to the multiunit and people say, there's no historic and there's no health or safety issues. like they will get hurt physically, that we're not on solid ground still. and that really worries me. [please stand by] for $7,000, a

replacing it with what you're just saying is an economic equation, i think we're going directly against that policy support. and for that reason, i cannot support the application. it's for that very reason.

>> vice president richards: i understand. >> commissioner moore: it's a game that is skillfully played, and we are sitting here, not quite knowing how to respond to the housing accountablity act, although i believe commissioner hillis gave a very good four or five reasons of why we should not support this billing. >> vice president richards: you can tell it's conflicted internally. >> commissioner moore: yeah. i hear you, but i also hear of what we call supported with a lot of work and a lot of work from the community to do here. it was a very simple answer and a very simple support to do that. >> vice president richards: sure. perhaps we should have recommended a rezoning here, as

well. >> again, i would support a continuance. i don't think we have a great reason to deny. i think we've got legitimate design concerns about this building that haven't been addressed by what he kind of came back to us. we asked to kind of look at the context, and that's the massing, also. it's not just putting on a different facade to this building, and i think in good faith, you should have met with folks in the community to try to figure out what works best. so that's -- you know, i -- i'm not comfortable at all taking action. >> president hillis: commission commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: yeah, and i know this is my last hearing, but i also agree. i don't think the commission has enough information to deny this. i still have not heard what those objective findings would be. i think that if, you know,

there's a couple things that actually could happen. if we want to say that demolishing safe structures goes against the health and safety code, that is one thing. but i look at the plan that is presented here, and we've seen similar projects that there have been various attempts. there's four units in this plan, and we've seen projects with four or five units where developers have greed to give one unit to the voluntary how's housing program because it's not required for buildings under ten units. we've seen other sorts of benefits or other ways to sort of make projects conform a little bit more with the community, and i just don't feel like we've had any opportunity for that discussion to have happened. all i'm hearing is people saying there's been no communication and people haven't spoken. i would have even felt better

making a decision one way or another hearing if they'd met and screamed at each other for an hour. i think we've been backed into a corner as a commission, and we need to push our way out of this and put this work back on some of the other parties, so i would be supportive of a continuance. one for people to potentially talk to the supervisor's office for potential changes that she may want to make -- supervisor ronen may want to make with the planning code to make sure we have approve will for those specific projects in the neighborho neighborhood. and i want the ability for the pr sponsor to have a meeting with the community other than saying i tried. i want there to be evidence that there was actually a meeting and there was discussion and there was no agreement, and i think that at minimum, the commission should

request that before getting backed into a corner to make a decision. >> i also think we should engage with the city attorney and have a potential closed session on the housing accountablity act? commissioner moore. >> supervisor campos and then supervisor cothen actually participated in the reform of interim controls and helped the community come as far as we did. we just need to remind ourselves that they did that. that was a very important step to acknowledge. i was not here on december 12th when when you discussed the project. however, i followed it, and i did not here any objection to the design except for the location, and for facade modification, this particular case, including the changes in demonstration, which makes it a nice building. i could comfortably say in any

other location, this would definitely be an approval of the building. however, where it is with the overlay that at the core of this is the demolition of a sound structure, the whole discussion has a completely different meaning, and i do not think that a continuance of this project would create any other result other than the community rightfully presenting the year or 1.5 or 2 year-long work with particular emphasis of where this project is. so i personally cannot support a continuance because i don't think it would create anything other than they might scream at each other, and we would be confronted with the same issues that are in front of us right now. so that is my interpretation of where we really are or where we would be with a continuance. >> president hillis:

commissioner melgar. >> commissioner melgar: so there's a motion on the floor, and i believe we could get it over with. i also don't support a continuance, but we'll see where it goes. if the commission does end up voting for a continuance, i would like to please ask the project sponsor to enter into a conversation with the neighborhood in good faith. don't say racist things. show some respect, and then, let's see where it goes. >> president hillis: one, we have a motion, a motion to continue would take precedent if there was a motion to continue. i think we also would be best advised to talk to the city attorney before approving or denying a project just because housing accountablity has been brought up. we've approved projects that have demoed buildings single story in rh-2 and rh-3 that staff has said this was not a historic building, so i think we'd want to look at that,

also. i don't want to end up in a situation where there's continued conflict on this, which i think we could get at either way commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm going to make a motion to continue to some date in february , and while we look at what date, i would ask that when you go into closed session with the city attorney, which i hope that will also happen before then, that you specifically ask about demolitions of sou demolitions of sound structures, and if you could make changes to the planning code or the health code, to -- what changes could you make to be able to make that finding, because i think that that's sort of a key to some things that we want to see around here, and again, this is stuff we can't makeup as we go along. this has been a challenge to our planning code and general plan all along.

it's too i go have vague, and chickens are coming home to roost. >> commissioner johnson, if you expect the commissioners to actually schedule a closed session prior to reconsidering this matter, i would suggest a date in march, so how about march 22nd? >> president hillis: second. commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: three things here. we could have findings, we could change the zoning. the other thing is we could change the housing accountablity act to say you can't demolish historic buildings in these types of situations. there is other things you can do to take into account these kind of issues, so there are three things to do, so there's a lot of work to do. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: sorry. just going to say, first of all, we can change the housing accountablity act?

>> vice president richards: no, i was saying -- >> commissioner johnson: yes, i know what you mean now. yes, i think a legislative session for 2018 is probably full up, but i think we can clarify our own codes. that's something that can happen in the next few months, so there's that. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm sorry to say that as a commissioner, i feel like somebody's putting a gun on my head. if there's no clear answer or no clear metrics in the housing accountablity act, how can i just act out of fear for let gas statilet -- litigation? how can i? if the housing accountablity act is against the basic principles of why we're sitting here, deliberating on a very critical issue, then i think we might as well take sometime out of being commissioners because we're not doing what we're supposed to do. we're kicking the can down the road because by march whatever

it is, 22nd, none of those issues are going to be fully vetted. if the city attorney sitting here cannot give us a clear answer of what that does or does not mean. we have the full account of the housing accountablity act in our packet, and none of it speaks to -- none of it speaks to using the back up on the mission 2020 plan to basically at least firmly affirm of what we believe in. if we can't do that, i feel basically threatened by a hypothetical litigation, and i'm not doing my duty. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i think commissioner moore makes a good point, and i know we're belaboring this, but it's really important, because it keeps coming back, and we do keep kicking can down the road. the housing accountablity act

is completely taking advantage of the fact that our planning code and our general plan are deliberately vague. and we -- and we -- and there's not enough guidance for us -- there's a reason why that whole objective standards term was put in there. it was particularly to try to work around cities like san francisco that have vague terminology, and i'm saying i think that there's a way to clarify it so that we can get more of what we want and less of what we don't want, and we should not kick the can down the road and just yell at the state and say, you know, we haste th hate this law. we should clarify our own standards. i've put a a couple of ideas -- commissioner richards has put out a couple of codes. i think we need to do that work, and then, we will lighten our load somewhat.

>> president hillis: commissioner koppel? >> i would just remind that the housing accountablity law is to deliberately stop the accountablity of housing. it's for communities, for example, like brisbane who have been holding up housing on their land for years. we don't have the authority or the ability to say it applies to some communities and not others. it is a statewide law, and so i would just remind us of that act. >> clerk: commissioners, there was a motion with conditions that was superseded by a motion to continue to march 22nd and for the sponsor to work with that community. on that. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: the motion fails, 3-4 with commissioners koppel,

melgar, moor, and richards voting agai voting against. should i call the motion to approve? [ roll call. ] >> clerk: the motion fails, commissioners, 3-4, with commissioners fong, melgar, moore, and hillis voting against. i will remind commissioners that if there's no subsequent motion, that this matter will be de facto disapproved by the planning commission. >> commissioners, kate stacey in the planning department. i will remind you that the housing accountablity act does require specific finding, so if the commission is not going to make specific findings, i would suggest you take a motion to disapproval and give staff some

guidance on what information you need for those findings. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel. >> is the more preservationist style in here -- there's two options in our packet, correct? >> i don't think one's a real option. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i will give a strong nod to the sponsor to meet with the commission and have a discussion with the city attorney what reasonable arguments we could make for the city of san francisco and this particular neighborhood to indeed create strong arguments of why we deny this project. i think since there is a lot of uncertainty, i do believe a little bit more concise head work at the right time would probably help us to be more

articulate with common grounds defining criteria. >> kate stacey from the city attorney's office. i think that discussion needs to happen in open session. we can certainly give you legal advice on the risks and consequences of certain kinds of legal analyses in the litigation, but the general spans of what could apply or should apply should happen in open session. there will need to be some discussion about what types of findings and what types of standards would comply with the housing accountablity act and what would the city's position be. >> commissioner moore: i was never implying that it would be done behind closed doors. i think it would be the benefit of everybody to hear a robust discussion on the subject matter. it is new territory, and again, we could schedule that early in

the year and, again, it's a big learning curve for all of us, but i think it would very much empower us to be more effective and consistent in how we look at these particular types of cases. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: my take on it, miss stacey, is there would be a motion to disapprove, and we'd take a stab -- or staff working with us would take a stab at the findings so that we'd have it in front of us to debate in public. >> if i may, commissioners, i'm hearing somewhat two different things. i think what kate stacey was recommending for this particular project, you take a motion of intent, give us time to actually develop -- >> right. >> the second thing that i'm hearing is a general discussion, but that recommendation at this point would be to give us a motion of intent, give us three weeks, four weeks to develop those

findings and to come back with a final vote. >> right. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i'll take a stab at it. make a motion to continue to -- march 22nd was the original continuance date we had. and for the findings, i know staff will take a stab at it, but i'll stick with my original idea. i think seeing no others, that we look for specific public health and -- adverse public health and safety impacts of demolition of sound housing. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to look for consistency with state law that this particular legislation is created to find more equity in what specific communities do in response to director william's interpretation. i think that would be very helpful for us. but on the other hand, i'm not necessarily supporting making a -- making a motion of intent

to deny because given that the project de facto has been denied by what the outcome of what we just did, why don't we just figure out how we can develop those criteria in order to substantiate our situation today. >> my concern was even though there wasn't a housing accountablity issue, you don't have a motion in front of you at that time. >> commissioner moore: i'm taking the interpretation of secretary ionin the fact that he did not have four votes to support is an automatic denial. >> when you do that, typically, you take a motion of intent so that we can rewrite the motion for you. >> yes. >> that's typically what you do when you want to deny. >> correct. i don't think we're required to do that, commissioner moore. i think in this case, given the discussion of the housing accountablity act, if we wanted to deny the project, it would

be in our best interest to go through that effort so that if there is a challenge to this, there are the findings that are reflective of this discussion that can -- were better articulated. >> commissioner moore: would the moxy hotel where we had a vote by which -- >> there wasn't a housing project under the housing accountablity act. >> commissioner moore: no, but it was the outcome of a type of motion. if the motion doesn't have the required four votes, it's automatically denied, and that does not require another motion with intent to deny. >> president hillis: we did a motion to disapprove. it just came back to us. even though in that interim -- >> commissioner moore: at this point, a clarification of the moment. >> yeah. there's no requirement that the commission adopt a motion of intent to disapprove. i think the advice from both the commission president and the director is that it be --

would be wise to do so. there is no requirement. it would be de facto disapproved without an authorization action by this commission or subsequent continuance motion by this commission. >> commissioner melgar? >> commissioner melgar: i'm going to second commissioner john's motion. >> and on that motion, commissioner john, my motion was on march 22nd to continue where the intent was for the project sponsor to work with the neighbors. this, i don't think needs a three month continuance. >> commissioner johnson: okay. my only suggestion to that would be i still think the closed session on the housing accountablity act to make findings would be helpful, and i think because we're looking at intent to disapprove, i don't think it matters if you do it tomorrow -- >> president hillis: yeah, yeah, commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: just on commissioner moore's point,

point taken. i think with other types of disapprovals, the commission generally has the discretion to say yes or no for any or no reason at all. usually, they're broad. in this case, it's not broad. the law said we have to make specific types of findings, and we're not prepared to do that tonight. >> clerk: all right. commissioners, there is a motion of intent to deny and continue to march 22nd. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-3, with commissioners, moore, richards, and hillis voting against. commissioners, that'll place us on item 17 for case 2017-07440 at 2094 folsom street.

this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening, commissioners. commissioner johnson, thank you for your years of public service, for your wit, intellect and human. it will certainly be missed. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning codes sections 121.2, 249.0303, and 711 to allow the change of use from trade shop to restaurant with accessory brewery and to allow a nonresidential use larger than 4,000 square feet. the new restaurant will occupy space formerly occupied by timbuk2. the existing commercial space

is 2,481 square feet in size. the proposed restaurant is 4,646 square feet, inclusive of a mezzanine. sections require the commission to establish nonresidential criterias for -- [ inaudible ] -- and considers the intensity of the activity, the proposed use -- that the proposed use will serve the neighborhood and that the building in which the use is to be located is designed in discreet elements. planning code section 3030 establishes criteria that require the commission to consider the existing concentration of the eating and drinking uses in the area. such concentration should not exceed 33% within the immediate area of the subject site for the purposes of code section 03030, the immediate area shall

be defined as all properties westbou within 300 feet of the subject property. one of the chief concerns of the community is the loss of neighborhoods serving retail establishments to destination venues. community advocates have indicated their desire for regulations and incentives that retain 1 retain in favor of communities serving retail institutions. the community concerns gave rise to commission interim zoning controls adopted by the planning commission on january 14th, 2016. planning commission resolution number 19865 requires any restaurant within the interim control boundary area to obtain a conditional use authorization from the zoning and planning

commission. planning code section 711 principlely permitted a restaurant on the zoning district nc-2. while the proposed use is an eating establishment, the percent of commercial frontage in subject -- in the subject zoning district within 300 feet of the project site that would be devoted to restaurant and limited restaurant use would increase from 16.6% to 22.3%, remaining below the afore mentioned prescriptive 25% maximum. with regard to the accessory brewer re, project 703 states that -- also requires the use of more than one-third of the total floor area occupied by such use, and the principal or conditional use to which it is accessoried to.

proposed accessory brewer remeasures approximately 475 square feet. which is 10% of the total 4,644 square feet for the restaurant. furthermore, the accessory brewer rewill be limited in production to a maximum of no more than 5,000 barrels peryear, however, the project sponsor does not anticipate producing more than 1,000 barrels peryear. today, the department has received public comments inquiring about the project, the hearing, as well as expressing opposition and support of the proposal. united to save the mission submitted an e-mail expressing concerns of the limited amount of production that is proposed. they would much rather see this location to be used for beer manufacturing rather than for consumption. u.s. sam is in opposition to high end bars and restaurants that do not serve the local

community. 12 letters of support have been submitted. letters of support have been submitted from 12 entities, all correspondences in writing has been included in packet. the project promotes a locally owned small business, the district is well served by transient, therefore, consumers should not impact requirement. the project meets all general requirements of the public planning code. this concludes staff's presentation, and i am happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor? welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm going to be copresenting

with timbuk2 as well. they're just going to say a couple of notes at the end. my name is justin. i'm the owner of four point brewery, and we'd love the opportunity to open a brewery in the corridor. we will create a beautifully designed community central run tap room and kitchen. the space will be open from 11:00 a.m. to midnight, and will remain to all ages at all times. particular buck 2 initially invited us to take over this portion of their building to not only activate the space but to invite the public to come and see the premier application of two san francisco manufacturers. we're honored to be offered this opportunity to activate the space along with particular buck 2. in our neighborhood outreach,

we heard three primary concerns: one, how are you going to make sure the space is welcoming to mission locals who can't afford the price of the pie in brew pubs that have popped up in neighborhoods. what are you going to ensure that you're hiring locally? in response, we've committed to all our hiring throughout sf made, all hiring will be local three. what are you going to do about drunkenness and noise. our response. unlike nearby bars, we are only selling beer and wine and not full liquor. this is very important. this long said with the design of the space and the fact that we are all ages at all hours will not be conducive to creating a dive bar environment, but to mitigate noise, we'll make sure our entrance is on the commercially active corridor instead of

shotwell street. there'd be zero displacement of pdr. project will create ten service jobs and four manufacturing jobs on-site in the mission. we pay employees above market rate, including 100% health care coverage. i'd like to end on this note. i'm committed to ensuring this project will be an asset to this neighborhood. we have supported over 70 nonprofits in the bay areas, several of which are in the mission, so i'd like to thank the commission for considering this project and hand it over for tony. >> thank you. i'm tony, and i've been the coo of timbuk2 for the past ten

years, and as jeff's mentioned, we've been manufacturing our bags in the commission district since our founding about 28 years ago, and without question, our single biggest competitive disadvantage is the high cost of operating a san francisco driven primarily by the high cost of real estate, and what we're proposing to do is sublease less than 15% of our space to four point who has a business model that can significantly support the rent that we're asking. they're to support us in able to mitigate some of that competitive disadvantage. and second of all in this project, we're going to be able to open up our building and our manufacturing facilities to the community. right now, it's fairly closed off. the location where it's centered, there's no real way to have it visually -- visually appealing or aware of in the neighborhood. many people walk by, don't even know we make bags there, and we'll be able to shift or entrance from shotwell street, which is primarily residential,

to 20th street to an existing rolltop door where our facility will be much more visible. it'll be much more welcoming to the community to come in and see our bags being manufactured, so we're excited about that opportunity as well. so thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. so we'll open this item up for public comment. there's organized opposition, spike, is that you? welcome. >> we have three people for the organized opposition, and i'm going to introduce shelley who i found through the package that she had been asking for information, and until i contacted her, she had no idea it was happening today. >> hi. my name is shelley. i live down the street from the project. i -- i've -- was born and raised in san francisco, and i'm still here. i've lived on shotwell street

for 15 years. i've spent -- since i talked to spike, i've spent a few hours only collecting signatures, so i'd like to submit a petition with 58 signatures against this that i've collected in just a couple hours standing outside my house. i am -- in addition, there are my comments that i have e-mailed to the commission. the -- so personally, the eating and drinking survey is flawed. the -- the survey, instead of comparing retail -- the eating and drinking retail frontage to all retail frontage, it compares eating and drinking frontage to all frontage in the 300-foot radius, and so it

includes the school, the frontage that the eating and drinking frontage is -- includes the fire house, and the residential. and so it really skews that 25% marker. i'm very concerned about the stink of the brewery that, you know, having a brewery right next to me will cause my apartment -- i'm on the third floor. i live in a tiny studio with very little ventilation, and i -- there's nothing impeding the offgasing from my air in my apartment, and i'm very concerned about that. there's -- and i also understand that that building is -- does have a historic resource status, and there's nothing in that plan that i saw

that addresses the venting of the brewery or the restaurant. and obviously, that would make an exterior change on the building. i'm very concerned. right now -- i counted 165 seats in this restaurant, and that's an enormous restaurant from the plan that was submitted. that's an enormous restaurant way out of scale for the neighborhood, and i'm very concerned about the ubers and ride shares that presently block the crosswalk, and i'll turn it over. >> and i'll follow up with that. they talk about a 20th street corridor. 20th street is the smallest little street at shot well. there's no room for drop off of ubers. it's transit rich, but none of the patrons of pacific brewery

company, which is a very similar type of brewery that's just down the block. nobody takes the 12 folsom to get there, they all take ubers and lyfts. as i ride my bike home from south vanness, very easy to go down 20th street until i hit tricksaw, and all of a sudden i'm getting doors, there's double parking, there's lyft, there's uber. and this street has one white zone space. there's no way there's 1,000 people -- if it's 165 or 1 # 0 seats, but they're going to be open 13 hours, so there's probably going to be 1,000 people coming onto this little residential street per day without any sort of accommodation to the people who live there. the problem that pacific felt factory which is who i'm

representing has, 'cause our artists have also signed another 20 signatures on a petition against this complex, we're concerned about the impact of this huge place. we tried to talk to them. this is destination. it's not serving the community unless you consider hot dogs as serving the community. we tried to talk with la cocina and sit down with justin and tried to come up with a way that a la cocnia graduate could come in there and have their brew being served. they offered a commissary kitchen that la cocina. southern exposure sent you an

e-mail yesterday morning saying that also, although they were tricked into supporting this, they're not supporting this project. they're standing with the mission community, and the only people that are supporting it are the people that received money from four point foundation. and the 100 people that lori and i have, and the other 100 that kevin has, these are people that oppose this large scale project. kevin is going to keep talking about it, and if you have any questions, i've lived on this street before 1984. i remember before tim bubuk2 c, and they already destroyed that block, and now they're saying now they can't afford it. but they bought the building. they got it for a song 20 years ago. it's not an economic situation,

it's a greed situation, and it's more money and more rent to be made off of my block, and it needs to be scaled off and not have 1,000 people dropped off in front of my house every day. >> kevin ortiz, united save the mission. four port is the fourth largest brewery in san francisco. this contributes to the mass cultural collapse of the mission district it's currently facing. timbuk2 is also a very successful business. they've been in the neighborhood 28 years. they're an enterprise business with 25 locations nationally. they previously, like spike mentioned, evicted the previous tenants, three local businesses. they evicted their tenants and then signed a lease with four point before actually conferring with the community.

so this loophole in the code, code 40, to allow group hub space to seat 150 people and serve beer and hot dogs located on a small extremely quiet corner will bring in a massive influx of cars and parking. we have two thirds of extra drivers in the city, as a report came out in the examiner earlier this year, due to ride sharing. this is only going to affect this neighborhood and this corner. alcohol spurs monsters, and bringing alcohol into a controlled alcohol special use district devotes the purpose this was created for. the average latino makes 37 k for a family of four. this is not an affordable price point unless they go eat there once or twice a year. when it comes to small businesses, 20% of the customers drive 80% of the

revenues. it's a block and a half away from the high school, and i would urge you guys to keep that mind because it's going to be open from 11:00 a.m. to midnight. it's just irresponsible. i'd like to read some comments from the petition that we have here from 200 people that have signed on-line. our neighborhood does not need more alcohol. we need more services, grocery stores, butcher shops, basic res, health centers. we are an adult working community, not a disneyland. this brewer reis out of scale for the neighborhood. please reject this brew pub. i've lived in the mission since 1970. this will make the traffic and parking just terrible. i manufacture in sf. we are in a pdr crisis and need to keep pdr and not use it for brewerys and restaurant. stop the alternative uses and

loss of pdr space. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you very much, and we'll open this item up for general public comment. i don't have speaker cards, but if you'd like to lineup on the screen side of the room. >> here's some more petitions, and i wanted to say that also, there's been 23 restaurant conversions so far in the mission from retail into these restaurants and bars, and there's another half a dozen in the pipeline. we put these cu's -- the reason 2020 put cu's on this type of conversion is because of the detriment to our community neighborhood serving businesses, and the whole point is to allow you a tool in order to listen to the community and scale down these type of things. the only thing again compared to pacific brewery --

>> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> okay. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is mary mendoza, and i was a teacher at john o'conor high school in the past, and an educator for many years, and i wanted to speak to the fact of this brewery being so close to the high school and in terms of the ride shares? i don't know if any of you have teenagers or who have ever worked with teenagers. they're very in their heads and teenage worlds. so in terms of crossing the street and having to deal with the ride share cars, for the most part, where i've seen them, they're in the crosswalks where they're dropping people off and not necessarily taking into consideration the pedestrians who were crossing that -- that's super problematic. so it's at a very high -- a very high walking area for the

teenagers who don't just get out of school at a certain hour. they get out after tutoring, they get out after sports, so it's a continuance of the students walking through that area. in addition, there's already a bar across the street, located dreektly across the street, i believe shot well's. there's also a long to think brewery a little further down next to the school -- on the corner next to the school. not on 20th, but i guess it must be on 19th. and then, the pacific -- southern pacific brewery, which is kind of an oddity. my first school that i taught at was potrero hill which was upsmell from anchor steam, and

i don't know if you've ever gone there, but having worked there, it's an extremely strong smell. it's something that the children when they go out into the yard, that they play in. it's a regular -- when you go to work every day, it's something that you smell. so i'm wanting to take those safety concerns into consideration. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening. hi name is angelica perez. i was born and raised in the mission. i'm living in the house that my grandmother bought in 1965, back when nobody wanted to live there. now everybody wants to live there. shot well's, schmidt's, homestead, bender's, southern pacific brewery. it's a nightmare. alamo dress house, booty bar.

i didn't bring my paperwork -- i'm going to tell you who else we have there. we have hookers who are attracted to the new money in the neighborhood. we have noise, we have vomit. we don't have respect. we have heard the people coming in from thursday through sunday. it's like a frat party coming off there. what we don't have is grocery stores within a reasonable distance. we don't have parking for the local people. half a block on folsom street is taken up by the school, and the fire department takes up the other half of 19th street, so it's really super dense. lyft uses my front driveway as their drop off and pick up point, uber -- whatever, all these people, all the time. we're not a vegas strip. this is not a disneyland for adults. yes, i'm the one that wrote that there. we have enough. is this necessary? is there no other place to go get a beer and a hot dog?

can we not bring in a grocery store, bakery, community services? it's ridiculous, you know in we're being inundated there. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. >> i'm eric, latino culture district, and we are opposed to the cu for four point. in the mission, we lost a lot of blue collar jobs which are long-term and stable and actually pay better than, you know, baristas in the area. the space was used by an auto shop, welding shop and tattoo parlor, and they were evicted by timbuk2, who said they need more space, and now, they have extra space and they're renting it out to four point. that's not desirable or necessary in this neighborhood.

yes, this is not hard liquor, it's beer and wine, but it still is liquor, and it will still get you drunk if you drink enough of it. what we're seeing a lot in the mission is a lot of wine and beer spaces opening up under the restaurant code. they have to have 51% of the payroll receipts in food, and what happens is they're not making those amounts, and it's not being enforced by the planning department. we have called on that, and we're not seeing that especially forced. we have four places in the mission district that they took the tables out, and you just stand around and eat food. the other thing is we're not prohibitionists, but we're seeing large places, that's a saturated area that's

predominantly a family neighborhood. this is an area that historically has been, you know, inundated with liquor. there's -- there's a problem with this concentration of liquor in these areas, especially in low income communities. the department of public health is actually looking the tenderloin, the mission, and the bayview, so just so you guys are ware, that this is happening right now, and we're just still continuing to inundate or neighborhoods with these problems. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello again. i'm speaking here today to ask you to not approve this project. as a resident and member of the

community here who've had a lot of family who've grownup specifically in that area and gone to school at john o'connell, i can attest that area is already saturated with adult entertainment. again, a lot of people mention them already, bender's, shot well's, southern pacific brewery right next to john o'connell high school, and they're asking you to approve another brewery right across. too often the needs of the community is being put wayside. it's the needs of a grocery, of a bakery. sometimes we take that for granted, but me personally growing up on capp street, and only recently, grocer outlet just opened up, that is a big thing for people who do not have cars or have to take public transit for something as basic as getting food.

by getting rid of any of the space to be a welder, be a workman, that essentially ends and cuts their careers completely, and one those spaces are gone, they're gone forever. we will never get them back. everything about this project is not being done in the right way. there's a right way and a wrong way and there's a middle ground, but this one is just too much in a neighborhood that has already seen too much of the same. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. thank you. commissioners. my name's daniel. i'm a director with four point beer company, and i'm here to ask you to support this project. i'm going to be the staff member who's directly responsible for overseeing this project, as well as our community engagement team which works directly with nonprofits and community organizations throughout san francisco. and you know what really drives me with the passion is -- with this project is the

relationships that you create at these spaces, the education you provide people for uniquely american -- uniquely san francisco crafted product, you can't find this anywhere else, and i'm really dedicated to creating a space that is safe, that's inclusive, that's open, that's friendly, that anyone from the community can come and enjoy their time at and get to know four point and get to know what we make and what we do in the city, so once again, thank you very much for your time, and i ask you to approve this project. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is jeff hargo. currently, i'm an employee at four point, and going on two years. just wanted to attest to the opportunities i've definitely been afor the recorded while working for four point as well as all my co-workers. i've been able to train on a

lot of things i didn't think i would work with and take skills that i'd be definitely able to take elsewhere. and we've lost to some employees being trained and being able to take that on with them to better opportunities. i think this project will definitely help a san francisco manufacturer that can bring more jobs in an industry that i think sometimes is closing in this city which is a little nerve-racking. having grownup in a neighborhood just adjacent to the neighborhood, over in glen park, i've seen a lot of neighborhoods change, and a lot of industries kind of shutdown, and being a carpenter's son, kind of nerve-racking, wanting to pursue that same area, working with my hands. this is definitely an opportunity for more jobs of that nature. thank you again for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. ne