this portion of the ordinance, this case report does talk about a few other amendments but it would just be conforming amendments to implement the policies i just described. we are recommending, and then we recommend that you do tall the remain -- of the street frontage. i have checked with secretary staff and there is room on that calendar. president miguel: thank you. i have two speaker cards, tom radulovich and marilyn anene. >> thanks, commissioners. key have the overhead? would that be possible? great. just a few things. first of all in the recommendation that's before you, i really appreciate your staff, after coming here last week, taking a second look at this.

i think it's a great set of uses and very inappropriate for the rc district. i think we came up with a great 21st century solution to the problem and thanks to everybody who worked on that. and i would fully commend it to you, and hopefully to the full board. we will put the uses behind us at least for the time being, we are ok with the continuance, as well. i think it's fantastic and tremendously important to the city. it's important for a few reasons, we would love your staff to take a closer look at two issues, one is the issue of what's called a snout house. i have an illustration here. this is a snout house. a snout house is a house that sticks its garage out toward the street and all the human-oriented parts of the building gets pulled back. very takic of post world war ii

construction. we don't have any in san francisco. they tend to have a garage that is flush with the interest facade. the current code does permit you to turn an existing building into a snout house. this is a victorian house and they pushed the garage out to the street and kept the principal back. this is unsafe for pedestrians, destroys the character of the neighborhood. now, because this house did it, the our two houses on either side can do it. this proposes getting rid of the snout house. staff weren't recommending it. we think that they should recommend it. portland got rid of it. seattle is taking this up now.

the other issue is street frontage requirements and i have another slide for what are called the limited commercial uses. this is 18th and san chez, a nonconforming use in a residential district. what this ordinance was trying to do was say, hey, a lot of the characteristics of this building, the transparent street front damages, the active use on the ground floor, they really contribute to character of the neighborhood. if that were a blank facade with the same use, it would be a real detraction, we were asking the commission to look at control. those same street frontage controls supported for neighborhood commercial district, would also apply in our district. it wasn't recommended but if your staff looks as it again, we would come up with something satisfactory. just feel like there's a little more work needed on these issues until we come up with something

everybody is happy with. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, i think continuance is important. i just became aware of this ordinance and in the agenda there's no indication of the supervisor's file number. anyone wanting to access the legislation itself wouldn't be able to. it's standard practice to include the board of supervisor's file number, so at 1:30, i went over to the board's clerk's office and got a copy of the 76-page legislation. i am not sure how many people are aware this is out there. i am glad to hear it is proposed for continuance until january 13th. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, director of the office of small business. i am just here to say that i am very pleased that staff has

worked with our office. the commission supports supervisor mirkarimi's legislation and we support the direction this is going in. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, jeremy paul. seeing the picture of the cafe, i thought i would share the history of why this problem needs to be resolved. some years ago, commissioner sugaya was sitting on the board of appeals, and the awning was cited for being an illegal awning. the board of appeals in its infinite wisdom determined that a permeable awning, something that did not shed water was not a violation of the zoning. so parting subjects, to try to allow an aging which is procedure for that state and that use, with the amount of sun

they get, with the south facing windows, it would be really prop to make uses for the adjacent requirements on the exterior, thank you. president miguel: additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. vice president olague? >> i wanted to thank the supervisor's office for giving us more time with this and for all the work you have done, tom, it's important stuff, but it's so subtle and wonky, that most people, it's just impossible to follow it or stay awake while you are following it, too. but a few of us might find this really -- and it is really important stuff. i think for whens of the public, this will have positive impacts on certain businesses, it's good for the public to have time to review it and see where it could

lead the city. sometimes they say the devil is in the details, and it's these smaller issues that have impacts. i appreciate the whole revisiting of the c2 stuff, based on the conversation we had here. i appreciate the revisions the department did there and i look forward to having more time to spend with it. i will go through and read some of these. and thank you ndres for being here and giving us the input from small business. i would like to hear their input on this conversation and see whatever stuff they. there's a little graph here and i want to be able to study it and look at it, too. i appreciate having that extra time to do so. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have a cup will of questions for arch marie rogers. if this has been gone over

already, correct me. but we are dealing with today, changes to rc3, and rc4 districts, is that it, not just van ness. >> that's correct and those are the only rc zoning districts left in the city. commissioner antonini: but there are others in divergent parts of the city. >> i have a map. rc1 and rc2 is still listed in the stable but it's only rc3 and rc4 that is mapped in the city. and they are the tender lobe and along vans in after. >> ok. >> but if you are looking, oh, moving it too big for the screen, i think. ok. this is market street, you can see where van ness hits market

street and this light-orangish color here is the rc4. let's see where the rv3 is. so it runs all along van ness and it's also the same color at rc3 at the top of the man and in the tender loin and then here is the adjacent zoning map. continuing on, here's market, jones and taylor street. again, this is the rc4. there's also rc4 along the water front areas, right here. commissioner antonini: ok, pretty much in the downtown area. it seemed to it seemed last we when we talked that there was one other unusual area on the western side of town. >> i think we were talking about the c-2 zoning district which is down to the south and west of the city, but not the rc.

commissioner antonini: and so we're dealing with just those and i guess my only concern and this has to do with the conditional use for formula retail and while some of the areas would be -- it seems like a lot of the van ness corridor is a lot like downtown. a lot like market to the east of van ness, which i believe most of that does not have the controls on formula retail that other areas of the city do. >> actually, along van ness is the one place where the formula retail controls requiring c.u. are currently in place. also parcels from van ness are include and do require a cu and the remainder of the rc parcels do not. commissioner antonini: so we already have the controls on van ness avenue. >> that is correct. commissioner antonini: and we're extending it to tarsz off the street -- to the areas off the street, which are the tenderloin and some others and wherever else the other parts of the rc-3 and 4 areas are that you put in.

okay. it sounds like that probably is just redefining something that's largely in place anyway. because i think a lot of those areas are more similar to the downtown area and you add to at least along van ness and if it's already in place, it isn't going to make any difference. you already have to go through that process on van ness, so that's really not going to change anything. okay. thank you. president miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: pardon my ignorance, but we're going to take the rc-3 and 4 and then use wise we're going to refer within those districts to the n.c.t. uses. >> to the nc-3 -- it's actually the same whether you are looking at ncd-3 or the nct-3. the uses are permitted and both are the same. we have a little chart of some of the differences. there is not that much

difference between rc-2 district and if you would like, there is a few differences that i can go over with you if you are interested. commissioner sugaya: no. but are there, then, aside from pieces, are there differences between the r districts and the nc districts? other than, you know -- >> well, the rc district already ly thing we're looking to the nc-3 districts is are these permitted and not permitted and what i described in the presentation if remainder of the controls are automatically applied. commissioner sugaya: just one last thing, in terms of motions, we continuing the original -- >> the revised motion that i have before you does both. it both approves the recommended changes that i described to refer to the nc-3 district and

it also has the remainder of the ordinances to january 13. commissioner sugaya: all right. thank you. president miguel: commissioner fong. commissioner fong: thank you. well, i'm completely confused. right. and i'll ask to take me up for lunch and maybe he can shed some light it to, but maybe an underlying question, this is all in an effort to finalize the side of the street. what sort of underlying outcome or desire is from this? >> the underlying effort we started this as a code cleanup because it had been -- it had variously been a c-2 and with intermittently and the c-2 is out of date. and once in the mid 90's or mid 80's -- mid 90's we tried to change it to the nearest and at that point it wasn't in place for very long and we realized

the nearest ncd is not appropriate and not consistent and there is not good control over restaurants for this area that we are stifling some of the businesses. we changed it back at that time to the c-2 and then evidently forgot we learned that lesson and in 2008 we had the same desire to update the underlying controls for the rc and we changed it to the nearist ncd and at this point we're recommending that the nearest ncd is not appropriate but the recommendation is the nc-3 which is the nc neighborhood commercial districts are varied throughout the city and some are specialized in a lot of limited use things. and from there they go up in intensity. one is the lowest level of intensity, two is moderate, and three or more is intense and that is the one we felt was appropriate here tnc-3 districts. >> i assure you it is not always this difficult. this is a particularly detailed one, but in general, you are

right, it is an attempt to activate sidewalks and make them more pedestrian oriented and just one piece of many pieces of legislation that do that. commissioner fong: great. thank you. president miguel: commissioner olague. vice president olague: move to approve with modificationmodifi. is that all right? including the continuance. i'm reading the wrong one. thank you. that's right. president miguel: is there a second? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: the other thing i kind of like for next year and i know we may not have a special hearing, although it might be good if the public could see it, too, but certainly informational on the zoning districts and for the commissioners to have all the detail because they change and of course, we were part of the changes when we went to the transit districts and gave them

different names and i think it would really be good if we had those details because as we saw from the maps, there are a lot of different district. and i think some of them overlap. so it would be good if we kind of had those things and definitions of what they are. vice president olague: i cheated a little bit because i already had lengthy conversations, if anyone wonders why i seem to be sort of on top of it, you know? secretary avery: the motion before you is for approval with amendments. the sections 209, 243 and continuing the other modifications to january 13, 2011. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. commissioner raymond fong. >> yay. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner olague. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. secretary avery: thank you. >> are we keeping the original

packet or will they be reviseed? >> we'll prepare a revised packet for january. thank you. secretary avery: commissioners, you are now going to item number 11. case 2010.0907c for 2342-2348 market street. >> good afternoon, president miguel and members of the commission. elizabeth waddy, department staff. this is a department initiated request to modify a previously approved conditional use authorization to eliminate or enclose the smoking patio at the front of an existing bar with other entertainment currently known as trigger at 2342 to 2348 market street between castro and 16th street in the upper market neighborhood commercial district. the department is requesting the enclosure or removal of the front smoking patio due to the project sponsor's nonclines with the conditions of approval over the past year. although some of the original noise-related complaints have

been mitigated and abated, the news from people on the outdoor smoking patio has continued to exceed permissible levels according to the entertainment commissions sound technician's report which were included in the packet. the project sponsor has had over 12 months to mitigate this problem and has been unable to do so. as such, the department is recommending that the outdoor smoking patio be enclosed or eliminated. based on recent conversations, the project sponsor's representative, it is staff's understanding that the project sponsor may be willing to enclose the front smoking patio and apply for the necessary permits to relocate the smoking patio to an unused room on the subject property that is not currently part of the bar. the proposed enclosure is consistent with the department's request of modification and the department's priority here is to gain compliance and abate the violation as soon as possible. the department has received support for the conditional use modification from the devose triangle neighborhood association, the eureka valley association, and three other

neighbors. the department has not received any opposition. i am also joined here today by jay connor, planning enforcement staff, who managed the violations for trigger, chris hahn, manager of the code enforcement team, and a member from the entertainment commission and the sound technician. and this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. thank you. president miguel: thank you. this is a conditional use project. >> good afternoon, commissions. jeremy fall speaking for trigger. about a week and a half ago, the district supervisor called us into his office and we hammered out a resolution. frankly, there have been some sound issues related to this

smoking patio, but the alternatives to in terms of just closing a smoking patio didn't help the situation as far as the district supervisor decided. the way this patio works on the sidewalk is to increase interaction between what's in the club and what's out of the club, which creates its own noise problem. and what evan was referring to to see resolved is not push smokers out onto the sidewalk where they would not be subject to the security of trigger or be able to be controlled in anyway. rather, they would spread out across the sidewalk where all we could do is ask them to move. so the better solution is to keep people from leaving the club to have a cigarette because quite often people go tonight clubs late at night are smokers. there's nothing that we're going to be able to do about that. if you go to the overhead, please, you'll see what we have

proposed to do is to -- we have a very odd-shaped storage room over here that the functional amount of square footage in the space is roughly equivalent to the smoking patio as far as how many people can use it. but it is fully enclosed and there is no problem with sound transmission and there is no communicating walls with any residences. and the ventilation systems that are available will allow this to be well venlted without creating -- well venlted without creating a smoke problem or a smell problem to adjacent properties. what we will be doing at that time is putting in acoustical wall along the sidewalk here so that there will be no more sound bleed of any sort coming from that wall. we maintain this passageway creating the vestibule with the two doors as there is on the other side. as far as the sound containment

measures. in terms of the procedural aspects of this, it was at the time we met with the director with the code enforcement planner and supervisor duffy and we did not understand that this was subject to, this portion of the property was not subject to the previous conditional use and we thought we would be able to do that in one motion today. apparently we have to come back with a modification to the conditional use, which we will -- we are agreeing to close off the smoking patio starting today so it will no longer be an opening to the street. i believe that will be a good interim step, but it is not going to solve the problem the way we would like to see it solved. i think it would be best if this

became a solid acoustical wall and we remove the smoking area from here and put it here. i have many things i could say about the code enforcement process that's led us here and efforts that trigger has made and changes we have made to address sound concerns and be a responsible business in this district, but i think that the intention of the planning department and the district supervisor was to avoid the discussion of that and just focus on how to mitigate the problems that we've got to the best of our abilities. that is what i wanted to present to you today. president miguel: thank you. we have a few speaker cards. pat truro, david, jim hannah. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. my name is pat trura and i am a member of the triangle neighborhood association and board member as well as a resident on 16th street directly behind trigger. the neighborhood made numerous attempts to work with trigger. we supported their original business plan and continually this owner has failed to adhere to their conditions of use. one of their conditions, number 13, was entertainment would be contained within the building. this is not happening. the noise pours out from all sections of the building. the vibration from that building can be felt on the street behind on 16th street at times. and another condition was number 14, number 14, that the nuisance would be controlled. there has been a continual

pattern of nuisance over time. lack of response to complaints, there were originally meetings that were set up with the neighborhood and the owner said we're going to have this special phone number and people can call. well, people have called repeatedly and people have basically given up. and people are fed up. and then i come to this hearing today to find out they have now made a political issue of their continued violations to the point that now they have a deal because the supervisor going out of office is helping them to do what the planning department and the entertainment commission has been trying to do for over a year. and now i hear that they also want a new conditional use for something else.

this is somebody that has continually abused the process. it's about the integrity of the planning process and this owner has continually abused that. and we support staff recommendation for the closure, but i find it completely offensive that it took all of the residents' time, the neighborhood association's time, the planning department's time to the level of the commissioners' time to get them to do what they have been asked to do for a year. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, president miguel and commissioners. i am david troops and i am also representing the devose triangle neighborhood association where i serve on the board and the land use committee.

i should also say that our president who you are all familiar with and sends his apology. he is out of the country on business or he would be here today. dtna is a great supporter of the diverse night life in our neighborhood. we supported trigger when they came to us two years ago seeking approval to expand and open. and we continue to support their existence. we have been very reasonable in our dealings with trigger. a few months before their initial application we went through a process with the cafe across the street where the neighborhood -- we'd hatted some problems with them -- we'd had some problems with them and the neighborhood groups wrote the conditions of use for the cafe. there were 47 conditions of use for that establishment. when trigger came along, we felt that the project sponsor had a reasonably good track record and

there were only 24 conditions imposed upon him and they were all very reasonable, but unfortunately, that comes to the issue of sound vibration and this project sponsor has continuously failed to comply. the entertainment commission has sent people out to do sound checks on numerous occasions and every single one has been failed. there has been some improvement in some areas, some of the time, but the noise is coming from this smoking patio in the front is not in compliance at all. they stated that the design of the smoking patio acts like a sound box, like a speaker almost, that lets the sound pout. we have had numerous meetings with the project sponsor. there was one lawyer's meeting i recall with planning department staff, the project sponsor, entertainment commission staff,

the district supervisor, neighbors, neighborhood associations, numerous promises were made and i have to say that the project sponsor is very good at saying the right thing and making the right promises but not as good at actually doing the right thing and following through on the promises. the entertainment commission has a watch list of bars that they are worried about and this is one of the top offenders on that list. we have never sought revocation, but we think this is a reasonable mitigation that should go a long way towards solving the problems with this business. and any other deals to create a new smoking area with the potential problems that could create for neighbors, i think that needs to be ar