bowling alley. that was a great place to go, especially with the music. they have the same kind of thing. you will go to a movie and you feel like having a drink when you're watching. with the competition with netflix and on demand, you will have something to eat or drink while you're watching a movie. sometimes that is a factor on your decision whether to go out or stay at home. i would be fine with adding that. >commissioner moore: the idea is a great idea. i love commissioner borden's input. i would like to ask supervisor kim one question. i do not see your legislation

including the theater. since it is coming to my attention, is this of the new had discussed already for some time or is this something sprung on in the last minute? supervisor kim: we did not have a report planned for today. our legislation was part of the impetus for this. they had been talking about this for a while. previous legislation coming forward but they have not been in discussion. there is confusion because they are nonprofit and there is an exception for that in the alcohol use district. film is not included as one of the exceptions for nonprofit theater. >> i want to make sure that it does not come across to the public -- this is something that was part of my fluency. it does not look like some

discussion can piggyback on something else because we did not have anybody come and address the bowling alley. even the owner had 3 sentences and then everything switched into discussing the theater. i want to mention that. you are giving us the background and that makes it a more valid discussion. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. -- supervisor kim: thank you. vice president miguel: the concept is a good one for san francisco. the idea of finally having a new bowling alley in san francisco, -- is there anyone on the ground for yet? a dentist's office.

as far as the theaters are concerned, having alcohol beverage service in a movie theater is not at all uncommon in europe and asia. much more common than in the united states. i always worry about how something is to find -- defined, how you define a single screen theater. it could be a monitor sitting someplace, whether it is by number of seats or area, however, i cautioned the definition. bowling alley is easier to define. i think a single screen theater

all the sudden brings in my mind, maybe i am too devious about it. the fact that someone will try to game the system. in general, i am all for it. commissioner sugaya: i think that comment should be taken into consideration by staff. i think we all know what about -- a bowling alley is although there is some amusement park bowling establishments that were not quite a bowling alley. there was some concern expressed about increasing alcohol. given the exception we are talking about witches for bowling alley and a single screen theater, i do not think the possibility of many additional similar establishments is likely.

i am happy to support both uses. i think that i see that opportunity for a date coming up with commissioner borden. as a youth, i was in a police athletic bowling league in redwood city and we did a lot of polling on saturday mornings as well. when the new bowling alley opens in the mission, we will make sure we're there together. commissioner fong: i am a supporter of good old-fashioned fun and i do not see an objection to these uses. there was a theater last night where alcohol was served -- we were at a theater last night where alcohol was served. if it is possible to separate out or desirable or not.

president olague: if you can come up so we can capture it on the mike. >we do not have an ability to separate it. we would have certain screenings that are 21 and over to stop any further mingling of underage drinking. >> "toy story 2," it might shut down the bar. >> i would be happy to make a motion to approve the amendment, as written, with the addition nonprofit single screen theater with some definition about what a movie house is. >> there is one other single screen movie theater within the district, the victoria theatre, it is not nonprofit.

we can continue to work with the supervisor's office to see whether or not we should fit this additional amendment within the category of nonprofit theaters or if we should extend it to be on nonprofit theaters. >> i will second. >> i wanted to comment on -- the comprehensive planning piece. that was something that came up last week when we were reviewing an application for restaurant. that was requesting a liquor license in this area, the conditional use wanted to extend serving alcohol -- i think it was 1:00 and we shorten that to 11:00 p.m. there might be some thought given later on. the project is not before us now. we might want to look at how we

might restrict hours when it comes to the service of alcohol when it comes to even whether it is the bowling alley or what not. i think the thing that is interesting is in the mission, there is a lot of changes and we have been improving a lot of projects. sometimes it is project by project approval. there has been his gradual transformation of certain parts of the mission for more neighborhood serving businesses and retail to more of a destination site for certain types of restaurants and the sort of thing. i guess -- it would be good at this time if we could start comprehensively, to really look at how are these changes, these approvals transforming the neighborhood. what are people thinking, what

are the long-term residents and businesses thinking and this sort of thing. i am grateful you picked up on that when it was raised last week. also, i agree with everyone else here. it was tragic to see what happened to the red vic. it was there forever and we lost it. we're constantly losing these places. is a beer and wine or is it -- we're not limiting to beer and wine? just bear? ok. -- just beer? ok. also, the bowling alley of course, we lost rock 'n' bowl, we definitely need this type of use in the mission. some of the calls i have been receiving from members of the community is that a lot of

consideration be given to families and youth. supervisor kim, i am sure you have that on your radar. the project sponsor has done it some outreach to groups and sometimes what i observe is there is a pick and choose on who the, reaches down to. a-- the outreach is done to. that would -- there might be challenges you end up at a better place. i think that is really it. but i think, it creates a certain balance. everything has been so moving so fast. i do not think anyone has had a

chance to, what is the word, consider a lot of different things. thank you. -- thank you for your work on this. commissioner moore: i want to talk to the owner of the roxy theater and make a point regarding i fully understand that it is supporting or in proving your business that you want alcohol and i am supportive of it to the extent the price point of which are selling stays within the general range of the audience you are currently serving. i had an experience which almost had me -- i bought a bottle of water. and it was for $4.50 and it was so shocked -- i was so shocked,

it if you are selling water and beer, that does not go into $10 are $12 because it would be losing and not helping the audience you are trying to attract. i am moving on thin water. i hope all those things stay in line with the intent of the amendment the code is being considered. >> absolutely. we are conscious of our prices and our concession prices with relation to to our patrons are. we have the cheapest concessions of any movie theater in san francisco and we want to continue that. vice president miguel: thanks. -- commissioner moore: thanks. supervisor kim: ensuring community out with -- outrage is something we considered. we met with the owners and ask them to outreach to the mission neighborhood.

it is a concern because there is a conflict within the neighborhood of never heard serving retail versus -- neighborhoods serving retail. we were happy to receive the feedback of a developing partnership. with the rocks when they came to us after the legislation had been introduced we ask them to do the same outrage that many had made to the committee. roxie already does a lot of community partnerships -- roxy does a lot of community partnerships. they showed a documentary about a vietnamese development center. i want to thank our director and are planning commission staff and ms. hayward for working on this with us. thank you. commissioner sugaya: are we limiting this to nonprofit theaters?

are we recommending that or no? i think it should be single screen theaters. president olague: i would support single screen theaters. >> your amendment is to extend the exception to single screen movie theaters? commissioner sugaya: correct. >> we do not currently have a definition of a single screen theaters. you could argue it is in the title but i wanted to make sure you are aware of that. president olague: this is a recommendation or. -- recommendation. commissioner moore: it is so locations that -- specific, it would meet the definition of a single screen theater. >> i want to make sure i'm

clear. this became -- we are not talking about the roxy bitter but any theater within the mission -- theater but not -- and a theater within the mission sdd. >> there is a motion on the floor to recommend this to the board with the amendment they include simple screen theaters in the mission district. on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner borden, aye. commissioner fong, aye. commissioner moore, aye. commissioner sugaya, aye. commissioners, you are on item 13.

reconstruction of buildings damaged or destroyed by fire or acts of god. >> good iafternoon. this is sponsored by supervisor cohen. i would like to convey her regrets that she could not be here. both t her staff are automating, i guess it was a shooting in the district and a young-5 year-old child was shot -- a young 5-year-old child was shot. they did prepare a letter for you. i would like to get that letter to the commission secretary. i only have one copy. we received a letter from the previous zoning administrator from the planning commission. you might have gotten this by e- mail already. the ordinance would amend to provide process for the reconstruction of nonconforming

uses our buildings damaged or describe it -- destroyed by fire or acts of god, a public enemy as well but not the rap star public enemy. public enemy as defined by the law. it would provide a retroactive date of august 1, 2009. the way it is now, the code has a way for these nonconforming uses that were destroyed in that way to be rebuilt but the current process is specific. it is specific but not very specific. it has led to different interpretations of the years. the current language says that provided this use a building could be rebuilt provided the restoration is permitted by the building code and it started within one year. and started within one year has been subject to enter -- interpretation over the years. there were three circumstances propose before you that would clearly define or try to define

what started within one year means. i could describe those to you in more detail. our department has proposed that simpler changes serve the same purpose in what we believe to be a more elegant manner. the department's recommendation is to change the existing started within one year into a language that is not subject to debate but also is fair and we have worked with the supervisor and interested parties and we have struck this balance with more clarity and fairness for people who may be stuck in the situation right now. what is before you will change the current one-year to a slightly longer time to 18 months and would clarify that for "started within 18 months" means 18 months after the calamity has occurred, the owner shall have fired date -- filed a

building permit application. four recent projects, this may have been caught in need of more flexibility. the resolution added and on codified section that would provide 18 months for anyone is in a situation to file a current building permit. that is the proposal before you as well as our recommendation. i can answer any questions if you have any. or we can go to public comment. president olague: will go to public comment at this time. -- we will go to public comment at this time. >> good afternoon. i am jim rubin, the interested party who has a warehouse in the bayview hunters point that burned down in august 2009. that was part of six warehouses that burned down that resulted from an illegal pot growing operation somewhere in the

neighborhood and they all burned. for the last 32 years, we submitted to declarations -- two declarations. the building process has been interpreted to mean something diligent. that language is ambiguous and it has been interpreted differently from current -- by a current zoning administrator. what we're asking for and what they supervisor has suggested is a way to essentially redraft the rest -- legislation to harmonize the intent of the legislation, if you have something that was destroyed by a comedy and is nonconforming you are entitled to rebuild it if that is your intent in new diligently repute -- perfect -- pursuit rebuilding. it takes a long time to negotiate with insurance companies and a long time to get through, i am sorry, your

process, and it takes a long time to get through plan check. last comment. we're fine with the changes the department recommends rather than those that were drafted by the city attorney and sent to them. they will work for us. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> you basically have three items the department has come up with that are great improvement over the original attempt at language. semantics are always difficult. one is 18 months, the second is a building permit and you are at pipeline proje problem with the them. 18 months as was just mentioned reflects the current situation. -- i have no problem with them. the building permit is an absolute known fact and i do not feel we should penalize the one

or very few projects that mad -- maybe in the pipeline. i would move to approve those changes to the code. commissioner antonini: commissioner miguel, that would be staff recommendation. vice president miguel: staff recommendation. commissioner antonini: i had a couple of questions on this. it would be as was pointed out, it would be the election of the property owner to retrofit or not. he could demolish and build a new structure if he so chose. >> that is correct. we're talking about nonconforming uses. a use that is no longer permitted and find an avenue to allow them to rebuild if it was unintentionally destroyed but they're not required to rebuild.

commissioner antonini: you can elect to have paid a higher premium to afford to do the code changes to bring our new structure up to code, this has to be looked at someone judiciously. i am going to vote for this but there are some things that are in code for reason that were not there long ago when these buildings were built. health and safety would not be applied in this situation. >> the ordinance applies to -- [unintelligible] commissioner antonini: for residential, things would apply as though it was a new building. >> this is for any nonconforming use, residential or other. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye.

commissioner borden, aye. commissioner fong, aye. commissioner moore, aye. commissioner sugaya, aye. president olague, aye. >> good evening. before you today is a request to install macro wireless 8 -- inside a structure that is currently used at the church. this would be included inside an existing steeple and equipment cabinets located in an internal room. this is considered a preference one location, the most preferred for this installation. the department has received correspondence in support and

opposition to the project. the department received a petition containing approximately 24 signatures. the department has received opposition from local neighborhood group, the russian hill neighborhood association and the petition contains 350 signatures. the concerns include radiofrequency exposure and structural stability to the steeple. as you are aware, the project must be complied with fcc radiofrequency exposure requirements by the department of public health. additionally, please be aware that all structural review of the project occurs during the building permit stage which occurs after a conditional use authorization, department of building inspection will be in charge of all review of structural considerations. all aspects of the project, the

department has found a project to be desirable and compatible to the neighborhood and recommends approval. it would appall -- allowed to expand wireless coverage in the area, the project is consistent with guidelines, it is a preferred site for wireless facilities. they [unintelligible] would avoid disruption of integrity to the building as well as the surrounding neighborhood. this concludes my presentation. i will be available for questions. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners, president olague. i am here seeking your approval

for a six panel antennas located at 2041 larkin street, also known as church of the fellowship for all. i am joined by shane erickson and representatives from the church. this is a preference one location under the 1996 wallet -- wireless telecommunications guidelines which you know is the most favorable of locations. we originally sent out the committee meeting notification months ago, we received three calls into our hot line seeking additional information. our plan are made it to where some of the -- made us aware of the concerns. we stopped the work and canceled the meeting and sent out the team to reevaluate the site. the team consisted of the site acquisition manager, the radiofrequency engineer, a licensed professional structural engineer, as well as a representative from medicine.

the team came back with 27 sites, all this favor. all these sites were submitted to the clerk of the commission. -- the team came back with 27 sites, all disfavored. we are addressing the significant gaps in coverage as a line. we sent out the new notices, i presented and attended the meeting. there were two main reasons. one, emf and the structurally -- structural integrity of the steeple. you're going to hear discussion around the structural integrity where we plan to place 650-pound antennas. the equipment will be placed on the second floor. -- we are planning to place six 50 lb antennas.

when we file for a building permit is face to. as part of the construction phase, we provide extensive information including a structural engineering report from a licensed professional engineer. if at that time changes are required by the department of building inspection, we will of course comply. as you know, at&t is legitimately working to upgrade its network to meet these telecommunications demands within san francisco. it is doing so in a manner that takes prudent and careful consideration of the aesthetic impact of the facility and the values the city seeks to promote. this application was consistent with city land use regulations and the wtf guidelines. this would be the least intrusive means by which at&t could fill the gap in the area. i ask the planning commission to approve a conditional use