it is something you should think about it. the concern around the process how long that would take is something for you to consider as well. this is what we have been hearing in the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. additional public comment? the public comment portion is closed. we bring it up to commissioners. commissioner antonini: oftentimes, we do see when we have conditional uses, studies have been done as far as sound comment it does not appear it has been done in this case.

i am not sure whether this is something that could be asked as a condition of approval or if it was felt by the commissioners that should be done first. kabuki has been there for a long time. in the entertainment that make incur there does not infringe upon the ability for kabuki to operate as a theater. i will wait to see what the other commissioners have to say, but i think in one form or another, this concern has to be addressed. whether it be addressed to a continuance or approval with conditions. we will have to see what is most appropriate. commissioner sugaya: pimm in this case, -- in this case, we do not have plans that show any

soundproofing construction. sometimes, we have those. sometimes, i suppose, we do not. it seems the neighboring uses, unlike some others, are more sensitive to noise then we have seen. i can imagine being in the theater and hearing noise coming from the adjacent entertainment would not make me very happy. equally so, i have had some massages, and i think it's been quiet is a pleasant experience. peter through a continuance -- either through a continuance to have the project sponsor address these issues might be in order or we could craft some kind of

stringent conditions, i suppose, then what is in the current document. perhaps the entertainment commission costs -- commission's, the amount of sound that would allow to be transmitted to adjacent buildings may be higher than what could be tolerated in this case. vice president wu: i wanted to confirm with staff whether it is the entertainment commission or its is dph that regulates the noise. >> my understanding is that the entertainment commission will be hearing about this. we did add that consistent number 11 that the building be adequately soundproofed and that

any noise meets the san francisco noise ordinance. commissioner wu: ok, thank you. commissioner moore: the basic elements of agreement should be in place and spelled out. what surprises me is that this letter of concern is written today. i would assume, if staff would have been involved in this at an appropriate time, it would not be in front of us today. it surprises me, while i fully see the support of the community at large, the technical detail is part of what we need to be sure of. otherwise, those issues which are not addressed.

i would have to ask the attorney as to whether we could craft and forcible sound proofing requirements for this to happen. i would be more comfortable continuing ed until the understanding between the applicant and the adjoining owners is fully technically resolved and then we can support this project. we're not saying that we are not supporting it, we're supporting the intent, except for that missing type of communication. arcelia hurta>> we do not have e

information before us to craft the right legislation on the sound. >> i am not there yet, but if we did continue the item, with this project go to the entertainment commission regardless? >> i believe they are waiting for the outcome of this commission to hold their hearing. >> could you speak right down into the microphone? >> i believe there waiting for the outcome of this commission to hold their hearing. >> if we approved it, they would hear it. it, they would also. ? >> i do not know.

>> they are waiting for your decision. if you did not make a decision today, they would likely hold off. >> i kind of lean towards, this is a key piece for japantown. eileen towards -- i lean towards approving in asking the neighbors to try to work it out to go above and beyond the sound proofing requirements the entertainment commission is going to put on them. hopefully, by then, when you go before the entertainment commissce of improved soundproofing to protect the neighbors. let me see were all to go with this. commissioner sugaya: i have a side question.

could you explain -- 3d owns the buildings further to the east, across the bridge? >> yes -- commissioner sugaya: are you involved in management- ownership? >> just 1881, which consists of sundance and on the spot -- and the spa. it affects both of them, especially the spa. commissioner sugaya: the lessee of the restaurant leases the property from the other owners. >> yes. >> what percentage of the spa

has shared walls with the proposed subject? >> i do not know the exact -- they are the ones who have been getting several complaints. people asking for their money back, saying that it is not relaxing. it is not relaxing whatsoever with the noise. >> thank you. commissioner antonini: thank you, i can appreciate the fact that the activation of live entertainment is important. i would be inclined to support a continuance. i do not know whether a month is adequate or how much time it would take to get some sort of a sound steady. if that was found that if we are unable to attenuate the new ways, making it compatible with the size -- the massage or spa activities or the theater, it

would influence our decision whether to improve or not -- approve or not. i would be more inclined to want to hear this could be done to be properly waffled to be able to make it possible. that would be my inclination. commissioner wu: seeing that there has been some level of community outreach, that the jtown task force supported the project, i think there is time between the planning commission and the entertainment commission to create a proper plan for soundproofing. these are real concerns, but it sounds like the project sponsor is willing and able to come up with a plan to help soundproof the building. commissioner sugaya: i am going

to make a motion to continue. the reasoning is, what has been expressed already, the concern about the sound and the level of sound that will be transmitted to adjacent uses. i am also concerned, there is nobody here from across the street in the residential units, but i think that needs to be looked at also. any sound testing needs to take into consideration what is happening along the street and across the street in those residential units. there should be -- i do not know if i have the votes -- but if it does it continued, i would suggest the project sponsor and the adjacent uses get together and discuss mutual, discuss the issues that have been raised and tried to reach some kind of solution to that.

there is already in our conditions the necessity to have soundproofing installed. what we're talking about is that we do not have enough information for us to approve the project based on the lack of information. therefore, that is why i would like to continue this item until we get some technical data. >> second. >> and the date for the proposed continuance? >> at the 13th. commissioner moore: i would like to remind the commission, we had several cases in front of us were people were trying to do restaurants with entertainment. in those cases, neighbors having great concerns, the applicants

brought sound engineers, including the type of equipment that would be using in order to mufle or make sound compatible with adjacent uses. here, we have an unusual building. anything to talk about how sound travels. we have to assume there is vibration as well as the noise. if we are doing apples and apples, it would be necessary to have a sound engineer advise on soundproofing of this type of structure. commissioner hillis: i would support a continuance, but given the language we have in the motion, under paragraph 11, the entertainment commission tried to move forward with -- i do not know if they are allowed to move forward before we act. they could start down the path

of looking at noise and sound. it seems like the equipment is already there. >> i have a question for the project sponsor. we were making assumptions that you had taken the measures to improve the soundproofing. maybe you could talk about the installation of additional soundproofing that you have in mind. >> first of all, they had soundproof titles throughout the ceiling. -- tiles due out the ceiling. -- throughout the ceiling. i talked to nicholas king from

the entertainment commission. he told me if i get the approval today for the condition of years, they asked me to contact the sound inspector to come down and inspect the place and tell me what needed to be done. i would do whatever necessary to satisfy the sound inspector. if this thing stops here and those backward, everything goes back to square one. i have been working with the entertainment and planning for the past four-six months. they keep on delaying. i am running into hardship. without entertainment, my business is very slow. with entertainment, we have a lot of customers coming to enjoy the music and the evening. i need to get this approved today.

as soon as this goes forward, i will go to the sound inspector and he will tell me what needs to be done. if they have a problem with me on the sound, i will cooperate with them. anything they want, i will do it. i cannot stop. and go backward. >> you are following the process you were asked to follow. thank you very much. commissioner sugaya: i think the issue is that i'm afraid the level of decibels the commission uses as a measure are not going to satisfy the neighbors because they will be too lenient. they are going to be using their own standards and rules and whatever. in this case, they need to have more put into what this engineer or sound technician is going to use as the standard.

that is the issue with me, too. >> the motion on the floor is for continuance. i have a date of september 13. for continuance of this item to september 13. [roll call vote] that motion passed, 4-2. this item -- the public hearing will remain open because you've asked for additional information. commissioners, you are now on item number 12. 1601 larkin street, a quest for

conditional use authorization. >> this is a motion for approval of conditional use authorization. the project as a proposal to demolish an existing vacant church. after hearing public testimony and discussing the item, the commission approved a motion to certify the eir prepared by a vote of 5-2. the commission expressed concern of the scale of the proposed building, the compatibility of the building to the proposed neighborhood. -- the to the surrounding neighborhood and the demolition to the vacant church. because-fed not recommended approval, the project -- the

commission passed a motion to disapprove the conditional use operation by a vote of 6-1. the commission contended the item to a future hearing. staff is prepared a disapproval motion. thank you. >> i call for the project sponsor. project sponsor? >> is the project sponsor here? >> good afternoon. i am representing -- we have

nothing to offer at this time. >> public comment. i have two cards. >> good afternoon. my name is f. joseph butler. i want to make some comments with regard to this item. i would like to thank the office of supervisor chiu who was working with the neighborhood to try to secure the building to get lights on at night, to close up the windows without looking like a blighted building. a new issue, there is a card that is always parked in the front yard of the vacant lot. there is an article in the chronicle today about cars parking on sidewalks.

the planning code also prohibits parking on vacant lots in residential neighborhoods. while earning some men come from this car, -- and, from this car, someone is earning some income from this vacant lot. in exchange for that, or whether you continue to allow it, it would be nice if the nevada council provided lighting, security, alarms within the building to note the motion or fire or smoke. the building is an architectural resources. an historic resources as defined by ceqa. until such time as this commission approves the replacement building, they may not act on the demolition permit that is before the commission. no need to remind you that the

intent to disapprove was as a result of two hearings, actually. one from a number of years ago and more recently, the hearing where even though the new architect presented a building with a different suit, the mapping and height and bulk was still unacceptable to a number of commissioners. forward with your intent to disapprove. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> i represent the california and nevada conference of the united methodist church. the owners of 1601 larkin. many of the remarks are more directed towards the zoning

administrator down the planning commission. i have to stand up here and save them because i cannot directly direct the zoning commissioner. the zoning commissioner has the power to issue a demolition permit. we have filed a lawsuit demanding that the city issue as a demolition permit. that lawsuit is in the process of a settlement. the next settlement hearing is scheduled for september 13. we believe the city has the power and the zoning administrator has the power to issue a demolition permit. there has been no substantial burden analysis by the city in any public document showing that the city has even analyzed the substantial burden as required. the decision of the city to deny a zoning permit law violated the religious land use act.

the building is not an historic structure under ceqa as a matter of law. we would urge the zoning administrator to issue eight demolition permit for the demolition of the building as required by state and federal law. thank you. >> i have a couple more speaker cards. >> i am here to -- i have been involved in this case since it started in 2007. as mr. moller referenced, -- but the referenced, this building was voted on twice. -- butler referenced, this building was voted on twice. there were nine commissioners that voted on a conditional use.

only one vote for this project. i am here to follow the process through. i urge you to please go through and denied this project as it is. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to read a letter. we passed resolution concerning 1601 larkin street. that shall incorporate elements of the historic first st. john's

methodist church. this approves the eir and the proposal for the project. the recent requirements by staff and a new architect are similar in height and mass. we strongly support efforts to reserve the reuse of the historic buildings. we oppose demolition tactics to win project approval. we believe san francisco mo greatly benefit if historic preservation laws and sepal laws are strictly enforced. -- ceqa laws are strictly enforced. we will never forget what this developer did to the japantown vote. the developer tried to diminish the cherry blossom festival food

fair, which is right by his condos that were built at a site where the japantown residents were being evicted many years ago. that is ridiculous, but it is beside the point. you have an opportunity to preserve this historic building. i urge you to do that, please. thank you. >> a couple more speakers. [reading names] >> good afternoon. i am a member of senior action network. our board has recently voted to

ask you to disapprove the proposed project. i am here to explain our position to you can read parts of our letter. we want to thank you for listening to the residence of the neighborhood. we want a project that incorporates the historical is significant church and as desirable neighborhood amenities, such as a community room, st. setbacks. passing the motion of disapproval is only beginning of what the citizens of san francisco want and need. to spend five years, the city has been challenged with too expensive lawsuits the existing structure has been allowed to deteriorate, a significant cultural artifacts have been vandalized, and now we are discussing ill-conceived proposals that have been concluded and the eir. we are no nearer to an acceptable outcome. let's go back to the original

vision of the methodist church. what they intended was non- profit housing. other examples of such an adaptive reuse, already enhance the city and can serve as models. we know local architects and housing nonprofits who are interested in developing nonprofit senior housing. now is the time to finally do the right thing. please do not negotiate and renegotiate a poor idea. let's give san francisco the housing it needs to be an inclusive city. let's give the neighborhood the amenities and wants and needs. [applause] >> thank you. if i have called your name, you can approach the podium. >> my name is greg wood.