encourage, not discourage. you know, my own community organizing work i've found that it's important to know when to use the carrot and the stick to try to help to encourage the type of social change that you want to see, but i think instead of posturing ourselves in the perspective of a ban, we have an incredible opportunity with lots of different community members that want to be part of the solution of making our downtown vibrant, to bring them together, whether it's through a working group or a series of holistic initiatives to come together to figure out how we can revitalize our mid market area. and so i'm really hopeful that that working group will form, will expand, will bring the right perspectives to the table. and really, again, create an opportunity to encourage a thoughtful, more robust package of legislation and initiatives. i really do think that the

recommendations of the planning staff were thoughtful and interesting, and i'd love to dig in on those more, as well. and i think that with those recommendations, it just feels clear to me that this whole thing needs a bit more time to bake, and i just, you know, could not in good conscience support legislation that, again, i think is well intentioned, puts at risk a huge potential for our community to come together in the name of very narrow legislation. specifically around cafeterias. so, i am not in support of this legislation, but i would love to hear what my fellow commissioners think. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you, commissioner johnson. i could not say it better. only thing i would add, to me, as one of our speakers, public

commentors, said, there is really no more important fight right now in the city than income inequality, and any opportunity that we have to provide easier ways for workers to organize, have a collective bargaining agreement that allows them to have a living wage is really, really important to me. and so i understand supervisor safai's intent in this legislation. i just think in the cost-benefit analysis, i cannot support it as it is. i do appreciate the staff's work on it, and i would say that given our recent experience with one front street, we do want to, you know, be clear about the siting and other things that we're trying to achieve in terms of activation of the street particularly, you know, after

hours, but i think that that's a separate issue than, you know, an outright ban on the cafeterias that are in companies right now. so i will not be supporting this legislation either. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so, i've been a beneficiary of a company cafeteria for probably 25 of the 30 years i was in tech, so i understand, you know, what it's all about. i probably gained 50 pounds eating all the food that was supplied to me. it's interesting, this is a very well-intentioned goal. it's getting the conversation started, and i think when i read the case report and actually thought about mid market and the twitter building and the market struggling and restaurants going out of business, it is a sobering fact that we have this going on amidst all this prosperity, and i thought when twitter would locate and kings lane would locate at mid market, we'd have a vibrant commercial center there, and that's really

not happened. the goal, i think, is increasing foot traffic on sidewalks by having employees patronize local businesses, and the balance with that is, creating wealth for small businesses and opportunities for entrepreneurs. so, you know, shared prosperity here. we need to strike a balance. we need to keep and stabilize these great jobs and hopefully unionize all 44 of those cafeterias and increase that job pool, but also we need to make sure we create jobs for small businesses and families that run them, but the conundrum is the pie is only so big. i mean, unless you keep adding workers and workers and workers, what's the balance there? where you have critical mass of people eating at the cafeteria, but also people, you know, going out there on the street. they don't eat lunch twice, only eat lunch, hopefully, once. i do agree with the terms commissioner johnson said, i'd rather use a carrot than a stick, and to that end i think the planning staff's recommendations were the most

spot-on i've seen in any set of recommendations. there's none that i disagree with. i think on number three, the interesting thing is, one of the things i wanted to say is, first story if they are open to the public, we tend to view these cafeterias as binary, either have to be on the ground floor, tenth floor, 30th floor, and it's not accessible to the public, but the last employer i was with, they were in a high-rise with a little complex of buildings next door, and i look and say the first tower now and all the retail space in the rooftop park, you could have your employee cafeteria not in the building, but four doors down and still be open to the public. we can get creative here, because this is a forward-looking piece of legislation. not like we're trying to retrofit what we've got in the existing buildings and cafeterias. we have a lot of planning going on for all these 6 or 8 million square feet of office space in the pipeline. this is the time to actually get creative. one other thing i'd like to say is, i'd like the -- i wouldn't like to prescribe or legislate the fact that companies have to

give vouchers, but i like the voucher concept as akin to what we had of the commuter check. you have $100 a month, whether you use it or not, and generally, who throws $100 away? you use it. if you get a restaurant check, a card with $100 on it to spend at a restaurant, that's a great way to do it. i really think these are all spot-on, and i completely support planning staff's recommendations. >> president hillis: great, thank you. i'll just chime in. i agree with most everything that was said today. i appreciate supervisor safai coming here and kind of explaining his intent, because i agree with his intent. i don't necessarily agree with kind of where the legislation went. i think by his own admission, this is a bit blunt in how to do it, just by banning all cafeterias. so i can't support that unless there's a lot more kind of data and thought into why we would do that. we heard today and received

e-mails some of the great reasons why we'd encourage these kinds of cafeterias if done right, especially the ones that have organized labor and are paying good wages and benefits, and those that are using local suppliers for kind of the chain of goods that they are then selling or providing through employees. so i think staff's recommendations were good, but i think we need a lot more thought. i mean, there may be geography to this, there may be certain sizes we want to do c.u.s for, but i think a lot more thought and data needs to go in. we hear about mid market, yet if you walk to the twitter building now, i'm sure it's pretty busy and there aren't vacancies there. i know there's been some closures in mid market, but if we get to know why there were those and why there are vacancies. downtown where most of these cafeterias are, i don't think we see a lot of vacancies or kind

of a dearth of restaurants or food service outlets. we tend to see more kind of chain operations downtown than what we're seeing in some of these cafeterias, so i just don't think this is ready. i couldn't support it as-is. i know the staff is saying recommend approval with changes, but to me it's somewhat of a disapproval, because it's saying, you know, pretty much upend what's here and rethink it. and that's what i think we have to go here. so i don't want to necessarily -- i support where the staff is going, but i would lean more towards, you know, disapproving a ban and kind of rethinking with some of the folks who actually testified today on how we could, you know, make the cafeterias that exist and new ones like the ones we heard about. so, i echo most everything that was said by commissioners. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i'll make the motion, and i'd love to hear amendments to it, if

there's any concern, but i move that, you know, this commission doesn't really support an outright ban. we do support more exploration through the recommendations to the planning staff, among other things that we've heard today, and i'd move to take that and get it to the land use committee and get this thing rolling, get the conversation continuing. i recommend moving this out of here today with the explicit understanding that we're not supporting a ban, but planning staff's recommendations around how to do this more with a carrot and stick approach with the six or eight recommendations that they had. >> president hillis: i think there's also additional recommendations that could come forward. >> commissioner richards: sure. >> president hillis: maybe staff can explain what it is that's in front of us. i mean, to me, this is a ban, so if we're saying we don't approve a ban, we're disapproving this when asking for alternatives to come forward. i know you all are walking a fine line on this, too, but i'd say let's just be clear, we don't support the ban.

that's pretty much a disapproval. >> page four has alternatives to a complete ban with all things listed, which is what we're trying to say. we don't want a ban, we want to explore alternatives and other ones we come up with today. >> secretary: you could say recommend disapproval, because that's how the ordinance is written, and with the caveat that said and explore other alternatives as outlined in the staff report, or you could say recommend approval with modifications as outlined in the staff report. remove the ban, but do the modifications. i think a disapproval might be more clear, and have them kind of go back to the drawing board, but either way the time is up on the 29th and they can move forward with that after that. >> president hillis: okay. >> commissioner richards: if we want to be clear, i'd recommend disapproval and explore alternatives. >> president hillis: i think

it's good to be clear. >> second. >> president hillis: could be other alternatives, too. that's kind of a start, but we heard alternatives today i think we should explore. all right, there's a motion and a second. jonas? >> secretary: indeed. so, just to clarify, the motion that has been seconded is to disapprove the proposed legislation with a recommendation to explore the alternatives. on that motion -- [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 15. if those persons exiting the chambers could do so quietly, we'd certainly appreciate that. items 15 a and b,

2016-012474cua. 118-134 kissling street. this is a zoning map amendment and conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff, the first item before the planning commission is adopting the draft resolution for zoning map amendment to san francisco map sheet zn-07 to rezone block 3517 and lot numbers 039, 040, 041, and 042 from a residential enclave that's r.e.d. to a residential enclave mix r.e.d.-m.x. the second item is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303, 823, 847.58 to permit construction of vehicle storage stackers with 96 spaces serving an existing automotive repair use doing business as royal automotive

group with a new screen wall along kissling street located at 118-134 kissling street. again, within the red-mx district. the project includes construction of a four-level, 30'6" on lots 039, 040, 041, and 042 for an existing automotive repair shop expansion. the project also includes construction of a 32'7" tall screen wall along kissling street. on march 10th, 2016, this planning commission approved motion 19588, adopting findings related to the approval of a c.u.a. pursuant to planning code section 303 and 844.71 for enclosed vehicle storage with a total of 132 spaces for an existing automotive repair facility within the zoning

district. the project was phase one of an automotive repair expansion for the entity doing business as royal motors. on october 19th, 2017, planning commission resolution number 20031. planning code section 813.58 states that vehicle storage enclosed lots as defined by section 890.132 is not in the residential enclave zoning district. section 8.758 states in 890.32 in the residential enclave mixed district. without the rezoning, the existing and intended use at 118-134 kissling street would not be permitted. therefore, a local industrial business would not be permitted to grow and expand at its current site. since the publication of the pact, one letter in opposition

of the project has been received and printed for the planning commission. the department recommends adoption of the draft resolution and approval of the c.u.a. as the project is on balance consistent with the general plan and planning code requirements, applies with the applicable planning code, the general plan, the rezoning and the proposed project allow the expansion of an existing industrial business. the kissling street frontage will receive site upgrades, including new street trees, a substantially reduced curb cut and sidewalks, which support the pedestrian environment and public realm. the proposed project seeks to retain the existing industrial progress in the city as envisioned in the commerce and industry element, the rezoning and proposed project promote retention and expansion of an industrial firm, which provides employment opportunities. the project is consistent with and respects the varied neighborhood character. the proposed kissling street frontage is in keeping with the

prevailing pattern of industrial characters in the vicinity, and provides appropriate mapping and scale for the adjacent context. the warehouse industrial and alley character within the zoning district. this concludes staff's presentation, and i'm available to answer any questions. >> president hillis: all right, thank you, ms. jardines. project sponsor? >> thank you, commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor, royal motors, we're here today to propose the second phase of a modernization of royal motors auto repair operation at the current building at howard and kissling streets between 11th and 12th. due to the construction of royal motors new dealership building, the operation needed to shift and be combined on this one site. so just as a quick overview of the project, the existing

operations consist of one single building used for auto repair. the project is going to construct a carwash, only not a retail one to be used only by the operation. construct a series of stackers on the surface lots of the project to increase the storage capacity from 81 to 228 parking storage spaces, and, again, the stackers will be used both for customers getting their cars repaired at the site, as well as overflow inventory from their dealership at south vaness. then, of course, constructing screen walls on howard and kissling to screen this off from the public view. it would significantly improve the operations of royal motors and have a benefit to the neighborhood. right now there's a parking garage across kissling street that royal motors needs to use to move auto repair cars back and forth through the site. that's happening on kissling street, a very narrow street, so

this is going to improve the cars moving around the neighborhood, and it also will enhance the existing p.r. operation that's existed at the site for more than 40 years. they have 102 service employees at the site and the -- back in 2016 this commission approved essentially the entire project with the exception of the stackers on the lots along kissling street, and that was because of the zoning has been issue. and we're here today to get the zoning map amendment done and get the stackers on that portion of the site approved. r.e.d. and r.e.d.-m.x. are very, very similar. the only difference is essentially it allows some additional auto uses, like the vehicle storage we're proposing today and commercial uses up to 1,250 square feet. so these zoning districts are very, very similar and allows essentially just for us to add the stacker operation to the kissling side of the street. and really the r.e.d.-m.x.

zoning district areas don't look that different from r.e.d. they are both mixed residential industrial areas in the west soma area. the intent of both is to allow existing industrial businesses to stay and grow while having -- while minimizing the impact on neighboring residential buildings. so, there's a couple of, you know, small differences between the two, but essentially, they are indistinguishable as you walk down these streets. we did -- we were contacted yesterday by the owner of the adjacent building. just like we did on howard street when we were here two years ago, we're more than willing to work with them in terms of screening out the operation from their use, acoustical screening, and even talking about how the stackers stack up against their property. unfortunately, that conversation didn't go anywhere, unlike on howard, where we are working with that property owner to make

sure that the operation does not have a negative impact on their living space. so, again, this is going to help an existing p.d.r. business continue in the city. it's been here for 40 years. i will note that the car wash construction is starting next year. we're going for the permit right now, so this is a project that is in process, and we respectfully request that you approve it. and i'm here with any questions. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: not much to comment on. we, you know, heard this i believe it was in may. i think it's a great thing to do. it makes sense. it meets the intention of the zoning. i move to approve. >> second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners, on the motion to approve this matter with conditions, well, first to adopt the zoning map amendment and then to improve the conditional use authorization with conditions.

[ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously 4-0. commissioners, that places us on item 16 for case 2017-015181-c.u.a. at 412 broadway. after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter to october 25th, 2018, with direction from the commission by a vote of 7-0. as this is a second hearing for this matter, we will limit the project sponsor's presentation to three minutes and public comment to one minute. >> good afternoon, president hillis, commissioners. andrew perry, department staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to extend the hours of operation until 4:00 a.m. daily for an existing

restaurant and nighttime entertainment use doing business as the penthouse club and restaurant. the business is located at 412 broadway and except for the extension of hours request, no other changes are proposed. commissioners, as mentioned, this item was last before you on september 13th. at that hearing, the department had recommended disapproval and you had a draft disapproval motion in your packets. public comment was heard at that last hearing with a number of speakers lending their support for the requested hours extension. in continuing the item to today's hearing, the commission directed staff to prepare a draft approval motion and also requested that additional information be brought back to this commission for further consideration and discussion. the additional information requested by the commission included the following, first, the status of legislation at the state level to expand alcoholic beverage service or drinking hours until 4:00 a.m. second, an update on any current pending or approved m.c.d. or cannabis retail applications in the vicinity of the proposed

application. and an understanding of the hours that those businesses might operate. third, copies of any studies that were referenced by the project sponsor or supporters at the last hearing regarding reductions in crime, noise, and other nuisances due to staggered bar and entertainment closing times. fourth, data on police calls for service and the immediate area surrounding hustler club at 1031 kearny street and around broadway generally. as a reminder, data on the hustler club was requested due to their weekend authorization, which is the only such existing authorization for an entertainment venue in this vicinity. if possible, commission requested a member of sfpd be on hand to answer questions. the commission requested suggestions for metrics that could be used to evaluate whether the trial had been successful or not. it was noted that both the project team and neighborhood groups should come to agreement on the selected metrics.

commissioners, yesterday you should have received a memo from staff discussing each of these points, along with several attachments, including both the revised draft approval motion as was requested and the original draft disapproval motion. academic studies and submittals from the project team regarding staggered closing times and police call data for the requested geographies was also included. please note that staff only received the call data this past monday, october 22nd. i also have several copies of this memo and its attachments with me here today. to briefly touch on the other points of information, first, the 4:00 a.m. drinking bill, although approved by both the state assembly and senate at the time of the last hearing was vetoed by governor brown. at this time the bill will not move forward as law and those certainly similar legislation may move forward in the future. second, with regard to cannabis, there are four pending cannabis retail applications within a quarter mile of the project site. in order to proceed, all four

applications would require conditional use authorization before this commission. while both the north beach and broadway m.c.d.s permit hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., the c.u. process for these cannabis retail uses would allow an opportunity for the commission to limit hours as condition of approval if you choose to do so. generally speaking, the location of elementary school at 350 broadway limits the possibility of new cannabis uses along broadway to that area west of kearny street. in other words, cannabis retail use could not locate along the 400 block of broadway, adjacent to the subject penthouse club. with regard to metrics, staff did not receive any concrete proposals from either the project sponsor or the neighborhood groups. staff recommendations for metrics appear in the memo. lastly, with regard to police call data, staff has had limited time to review the material. however, in general the data do appear to show that police calls for service remain at a higher level after 2:00 a.m. during

late night hours along the 1000 block of kearny street, with several calls linked specifically to the hustler club at 1031 kearny street. officer steve matthias is available today to answer any questions you may have about that data provided or sfpd's patrol operations around this area generally. as a final note, over the last week staff has received approximately 40 e-mails of neighboring residents in opposition. 25 e-mails of support were received prior to the last hearing. several neighborhood groups, the telegraph hill dwellers, coast association, gateway tenants situation and vallejo home owners association remain opposed to the hours extension, while the north beach business association support the application. thank you, commissioners, that concludes my presentation, and i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. perry. project sponsor?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. jeremy pole for the penthouse club. in comment on the issues that you asked for comment on, thank you to mr. perry for his good work in providing responses on this. i'd like to add one thing to that, is that the assumption that the conditional use would be the limiting factor on cannabis opening in late hours is a little bit of a red herring. state law requires that all cannabis sales cease before 10:00 p.m. at least that is how i understand the current law. and it's not proposed for expansion. in terms of suggested metrics, we're willing to accept the recommendations of planning staff.

it's our opinion that the impact is going to be unnoticeable, and that any actual disturbance that is created by an ongoing use, we wouldn't tolerate, and we wouldn't be in support of continuing. we want this to be a cooperative neighborhood venture that we're changing. you know, on tuesday there was an e-mail blast from telegraph hill dwellers that said, important, this may be your last chance. got to stop 4:00 a.m. this is the nose on the edge of the tent, that if this happens, all the other nightclubs are going to apply and they are going to have to be approved, too. there is no other business that's analogous to this one on the broadway corridor. no one operates the way we do at the penthouse club, and the demographics are not the same.

i think that this is an excellent opportunity to experiment, to see how well something works. we're asking for the six-month trial. i'm sure it can work out well with the professional level of security and management we have there. in terms of i wanted to comment also on the hustler club call data. we have security representatives from them -- there present to comment on this. it has -- that largely has to do with that club's calls for police service based on problems with customers inside the club, usually pertaining to failure to pay a tab. and it all happens at closing time, so all those calls get logged in that time block following 2:00 a.m. so i don't think it reflects actual violence on the street or anything like that or

altercations. sergeant matthias might be willing to comment on his perception of this, as well. thank you for your time. we're here to answer questions if you have any. >> president hillis: so we will open this item up for public comment. as jonas mentioned, we're going to limit this to one minute, seeing this is the second time we've heard this item. so, do we have speaker cards? i'll call some names. carl prescott, stan hayes, judy irving, dana taylor. if others would like to speak, you're welcome to do so. just line up on the screen-side of the room, and if your name's been called, you can approach in any order. >> good evening. thank you to having us. my name is carl prescott. i operate two businesses across

the penthouse building. i am the victim of that bombing. they put a bomb, the organization, the cousin and manager, they put it in front of my building. damaged my doors and siding. they have been investigated by i.r.s. and they've been found guilty. to this date, that has not been fixed. this is a horrible business. this is a horrible reputation. people are afraid to come here because they might be facing some kind of unpleasant situations like me. broken car, windshield, and stuff like that. and oppose it, because that would -- >> president hillis: thank you, sir. >> under the club's same owner --

>> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. thank you. mr. hayes? >> thank you very much. i'm going to speak very quickly for my minute. we didn't think we'd be able to speak today because the hearing was closed, so we asked people to send e-mails to you, 40 against four. and 122 new pages arriving last night, we urge you to think about continuing this item. in any event, our position is clear. with others, many organizations, we oppose the extension of the penthouse hours to 4:00, and we strongly support the planning staff's recommendation to disapprove this application. you asked for data last time. we tried to get the data for you. i'm not going to be able to go through it the way i'd like here, but i want you to know for the nine-month period through september, what found were in the newspapers, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, including an incident involving gunfire and multiple firearms in the same block as penthouse.

two-thirds on weekends, more than 80% after 8:00 p.m., 40% after midnight. how many incidents weren't reported? we urge you to vote no. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. hayes. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is judy irving. i am a freelance documentary filmmaker, live on telegraph hill, work in north beach. the police reports that you may get as part of your data are only part of the problem. this is essentially a residential area. i speak for many, many neighbors who couldn't be here because they have to work, but what happens after a club closes like that, you get people wandering up to telegraph hill and north beach, banging on garbage cans, yelling and shouting, small fistfights that don't get reported to the police. literally rolling garbage cans

down the hill just for fun. waking people up. this is a lifestyle problem. this is a residential area. please, think about the public benefit from allowing a couple of -- few people to work longer hours at the penthouse versus hundreds and hundreds of residents whose lives would be disrupted. >> president hillis: thank you, ms. irving, thank you very much. >> basically extending it to all night. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is diana taylor, and i'm here, i'm the president of the coast neighborhood association. i'm a long-time resident of the broadway to embarcadero racetrack corridor. i think everybody -- our letters have talked about how the noise and traffic and unruly behavior

occurs at the bottom of along that broadway corridor. not just within 300 feet. we oppose, we continue to oppose. none of our concerns have really been addressed by the club owners. i'm also a retired public health researcher, and that we ask you not to even consider this application without results from a comprehensive community engaged evaluation plan that that involves an adequate level of baseline data. if you approve this application, there's no incentive for the club -- >> president hillis: thank you. thank you. >> my name is daniel, i'm the deejay of penthouse club and hustler club, respectfully. i came to speak as a resident of the neighborhood, i've lived on broadway and columbus for 15

years. for one thing, the traffic, when everybody is let out at 2:00 a.m., hustler absorbs that traffic by giving people a place to go instead of hitting the street in their cars, they move down into a line we have in front of our club and have a venue to go into. secondly, from sunday to wednesday, no one is on the street at 2:00 a.m. broadway is empty at that point. i don't have any wild in the streets experiences. i live right at romala place. i'm their night manager. again, i've been there 15 years. on the weekends, again, having places to absorb the traffic coming out is an excellent resource. and that's what i came here -- i've never seen anyone rolling trash cans down the street for fun or anything like that. it's not a common issue. anyway, i came to share that today. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is mary, and i'm an employee at penthouse. thank you for hearing us. i think -- i spoke last time we

were here and mentioned how it would be helpful financially to have extended hours and we were excited when we thought it was going to happen with christmas coming up and everything, i was kind of planning on that, too. and i know you heard this last time, but i know the struggles that we all have financially and we all agree that this would be good for us. at the same time, i want to say i respect every perspective here and understand there's people that really believe it wouldn't be good, but all of us at penthouse, we want the best for north beach. we respect that area. we're proud of it and want it to be the best it can be and we're going to try our best to keep it that way. so i hope that you hear us. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is mark, i'm the supervisor of penthouse. based on the conversation that the lady had regarding trash cans being rolled down, for the past month since we've left, i've been hanging out on vallejo

and montgomery from 2:00 to 2:30. i have not seen our guests or any other guests from other spots on broadway venturing up on montgomery and rolling garbage cans down. also, the majority of our guests when they leave penthouse leave by an uber or a taxi. that's all i wanted to say to make sure that was clear. >> president hillis: great, thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i spoke in september about the matter, and basically said how it provided my family, me, a chance and opportunity to buy a house for me and my family, which like i said, my brother, sister, mom, they all stay with me, and another thing i'd like to speak about, our guests and our patrons aren't the kind of guys rolling trash cans and making noise. they are suit-wearing gentlemen that come in to have a good time, a safe place, and part of the problem is when you let all the clubs out on broadway at 2:00 a.m., that's when problems

they are discussing happen. if we had an extra two hours to keep them inside, keep them safe, keep them around inside penthouse and not on the street, i think it would make things a lot better for us and for them and for the people that stay around there. also, looking forward to, you know, maybe having a couple extra hours to make some money, christmas gifts for my family and maybe taking a day off to spend more time with my family seeing i work sometimes five, six days a week. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. terrence allen. i will speak directly to the letter that was submitted in my experience in creating the study with the research partner, who has looked at night life for the past 15 years here and in rio. what we have experienced is that an individual will trigger the intoxication level and two hours

later be below the intoxication level. we know that intoxication level is tied to physical and sexual aggression, so providing a place to reduce blood alcohol content from intoxication to not intoxication, i think, is an ideal solution for the neighborhood, the surrounding businesses, and as someone that's done that for a living before, i could never make any money selling water. so as an experiment, i would applaud the planning commission finding a way to do this with someone that's willing to put the money forward, see if it works. thank you, commissioners. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> commissioners, my name is guy carson, 34-year resident of north beach, 25-year industry veteran of nightclubs. owned hotel utah from 1990 to 2000. i'd walk up kearny to columbus, hit it about 1:45, about 2:00 in the morning, the clubs would let

out and it would be kind of a melee. so anything, my experience is, my thoughts have been for the broadway corridor, anything to stagger the closing of clubs is -- promotes public safety and reduces overall mass at any one time. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. carson. any additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. my name is paul weber, i'm a north beach resident. i support the proposition of testing this to see if it works, but not for six months and not for three blocks. it's got to cover the whole north beach area, because we're not talking about just drunks coming out of a club. we're talking about where all those people go. they walk right by my house on their way down to fisherman's wharf where they are staying, and i'm a ways away from broadway, but i know where they are coming from. so my suggestion would be run a test for a year. invite all the eight clubs that

will probably benefit from this, and see if we can agree with them and with staff on what the metrics ought to be. that way we're all going to be better off knowing exactly what the consequences are rather than guessing about them. this isn't just going to be one club. i just don't believe that. there will be eight clubs that will be lined up here ready to go. so with that background, i'd urge you to continue this and seek a more complete set of metrics in which the neighborhood can participate. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: well, i was for this item the first time around, and honestly, i think the governor brown's veto of the 4:00 a.m. alcohol sales maybe even helps the argument here. again, just attested to the high amount of security these establishments have. i would not be in favor of approving a new venue, but

again, this is an existing long-time local business, and this is the part of town you go to for these types of venues. >> president hillis: i was also supportive last time. i continue to be. i get that there's some question of whether some of the theorys we have and the project sponsor have will work. certainly, there are issues on the broadway corridor. i think i was adequately convinced that this may help some of those. certainly not going to add to it, but i don't know for sure. it didn't seem like this establishment was the one kind of causing issues and if it staggers time and reduces the mass of people, like mr. allen has attested, it could help. so, i would like to do it for a set time period, whether it's six months, a year, come back. i think that's the best metric that we can come up with, what

actually happens in that time period. invite representatives from sfpd, the neighborhood, obviously, and really get a sense for what happens between the hours of 2:00 and 4:00. and specifically hone down on what happens at this site to see that if it could happen, and maybe take mr. weber up on his offer to look at staggered opening times, you know, in a broader area in north beach or elsewhere. but i think it's worth it to give it a shot and either have it sunset at a certain time or schedule a -- you know, have some certainty where we schedule, you know, to retract this approval in six months so we have that on the calendar and can get data and take action. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so, i asked for a lot of data at the last meeting, and i was provided last night. there's a lot here to go through. is the police person here? great.

how are you? >> very good. >> great. >> steve matthias from central station. >> commissioner richards: we have before us this issue of are we actually reducing the amount of antisocial behavior, nuisances, if we stagger closing times instead of everybody coming out at 2:00, having other clubs, this other club and the one applying now staying open until 4:00. >> right. i've seen and heard that perspective. looking at this not on a study in rio or a study in san francisco, but a study on broadway as far as looking at our stats. those stats have been provided for us. looking at that, the data clearly shows that after-hours service increases calls for service at the hustler club. that's the only other club that's open after 2:00.

in the last three years, there have been 45 calls for service at the hustler club and 29 of these, approximately two-thirds of the calls, occurring after 2:00 a.m. on that same block, that unit block, there were 35 calls for service and 13 of which were after 2:00. on broadway after 2:00, there's kind of a down trend. [ please stand by ]

as we are dealing with the problem at hands. there is a delayed response for the outer district. if your car is getting broken into in the richmond district it can take the officer longer to get there. it does -- it is a domino effect

for the police department when we have 2 ok time. the reason the swing officers are getting off there is they have to come on. at 4:00 it is crazy in the city as far as calls for service. the volume is there. they are trying to do that. lastly, if we look at community opposition. that is something that we have to take into consideration when i am sitting here. >> to paraphrase what i think i heard you say after 2:00 on the certain block where the other club is open to 4:00, you can see no decrease in calls, no dropoff? >> broadway for the most part after 2:00 it starts decreasing. i am just if you look at the calls for service on the unit

block or 1,000 block, directly tied to the hustler club, address in that block, there is a pretty steady calls for service there. usually after 2:00 things wind down a bit. if it is open at 2:00 a.m. that increases explore you. we heard about the calls for service. what is the ratio. you you you we had 50 pages so

in order to answer your question, i am trying to understand. somebody is screaming at 3:00 a.m. i am probably not going to call the police unless i hear somebody saying put the gun down, don't hit me. i am trying to understand, you know, some of that call like that could come out as something as simple as a noise complaint. what is it? if we ran through page after page, you would be able to see the calls and different times. >> one other question. maybe this is an alcoholic beverage control question. what is the process for a club open until 4:00 on the alcohol

service? could i order six drinks at 1:5l 4:00? >> they have to be consumed. at 2:00 that is it. if you didn't finish it, you have to put it away. >> i am open to a test period. i am worried about baseline data and community input above i pull the trigger. otherwise i think this is going to catch fire. we have a 4:00 a.m. district. the alcohol legislation passing both house and senate or simbry and senate with governor brown versus governor newsome is different in a year or two. scott weiner is not going to give up. it is going to take a third bite at the apple and it ask going to pass. i am not sure it is the yes.

i am interested in community input. >> thank you. this one was tough for me. i actually went over there and walked all of the streets behind the club, which i haven't ever done, actually. i spent a lot of time on that strip. i have never walked up there, and i was struck by how residential it is. you don't think of broadway as a residential area. you know, you think of columbus and broadway, you know, there are a lot of people who live on those steep hills, you know, right behind it. and the buildings are really close together, and, you know, there is also that like weird hillside where there is a lot of people living there, too. i think that, you know, in terms of this commission, we want that

balance of having businesses that thrive and attract folks who come to our city to visit providing good jobs for folks, and payment making sure that people have a safe, quiet night to sleep and go to school or work the next day, right? i, too, am not quite convinced this is a good idea. i think it is a better idea now that, you know, the state legislation has stopped, but i agree with you that that is not the last we hear of it. there is an active lobby of folks pushing to extend the hours of drinking. the single most compelling thing i heard today is having the extra two hours to, you know, sober up and get out to the street and having been someplace where it is safe. that is compelling to me.

i just seen the statistic the police department. i am not convinced that will actually happen. if we do have the votes today t approve this i will request that we put a definite time limit so that we can assess whether or not this has done what the proponents have purported it would do to reduce calls, but i am not quite convinced. >> thanks. on the time limit question, i know we have sometimes gone back and forth. could we approve for a six month trial period then terminate and have the hearing? i know we have been told not. why not? >> my understanding, commissioners, they don't have that as an option the way the

condition operation is written you could say a hearing in six months or a year and consider rescinding. >> why can't we have six months and terminate? we put conditions on condition uses all of the time. it is no different to me than saying this is not going to 4:00 a.m. it is going to 3:00 a.m. >> that would be considered a temporary use. we don't have that authorization for six months. >> you need to initiate the revocation of the condition use authorization. >> we would initiate it and terminate it in six months, right now. this doesn't seem like -- i have questioned why that is the case. we can put so many conditions on condition uses and not terminate them. >> you can look back in six months, update hearing. >> that is weaker.

if we approve it. maybe there is not the votes that you know it is harder to disapprove in six months than t approve it in six months. >> commissioner richards. >> i think we are struggling to approve it based on the studies, the data or testimony or input from the police department. to go six months and undo it is a large task. that is kind of foolish to do that. we are setting ourselves up for failure. i wonder if we heard paul get up and say i will do a test. i will sell my chair. if the community and project sponsor can say in six months this is what we will look at. if they are north and south of these lines, you have got to revoindicate it.

thoughts, mr. webber? otherwise, we don't have a standard. >> six months, frankly, i think is too short. they could start a six-month period in, say, january or december. the rainiest period of the year. chances are good the incidents coming out of that time period are different. i don't know that but i guess it is different from the incidents from say may to october. i am saying make it a year. whatever 12 months you want, then the base period to measure the new period of 12 months would be the same period in the prior year. >> i am open to it. you have to come up with what may surements we are looking at. >> why not? >> i am open to it if the project sponsor will sit down and say number of calls, put a

camera on every house and look at the garbage cans, i don't know what it will be. you come up with the measurements. >> the other is the scope. i can see two ways. i imagine the club would narrow to three blocks. i am saying it is a very, very narrow scene. look at it a couple ways with the data the city police department has for the major part of north beach. many of these activities after the clubs close are not just fights and singing. they are break ins. they may be blocks away from the street. i am saying all right if we can use three blocks, that would be one measure. let's do a broader one. i am trying to avoid what they want to do. do it a couple ways and decide

later. >> mr. paul is reasonable. we have been through many situation in the castro and upper market. he will negotiate on the ways to agree on to get this going. thoughts, mr. paul? >> first, on his second point, you know,pect out club was -- penthouse club was critical of the top of broadway cbd. it had such tremendous effect on reduce you go all sorts of problems, cleanliness, crime, loitering, they were huge problems 10 years ago are minimal problems now. they have taken it down from you where it was. being good citizens. commissioner richards more than anyone up here knows how to tell

what a club is being a good citizen when a club is a bad citizen. we both know this commission can shut down a bad operator. in terms of coming up with metrics to measure that by, i don't believe that any numairca coefficient is going to do that. we have a hear anything six months. you are going to hear testimony that suggests that we have been a bad citizen and let things get out of control in some way. we are not arguing against that really. you will hear us say we have done -- the security measures we pro posed if they are not working they are not working. that is what you are going to hear. that is when we will cease going to 4:00 a.m. i am confident that is not going to happen. as far as coming up with metrics tome