of the infamous purple building and we submitted for permit and it's on hold because the clients would have to pay for $150,000 for their own eir and instead of that they have waited for the process to proceed which has taken another seven years. we had three meetings. the first meeting at swing and two meetings at the soma leadership council and at that time we met with representations of the night time entertainment industry and we actually changed the design of the building to meet the concerns. originally we had townhouses and larger family units and large scale building and on 11th as well as in the

back. we redesigned the building so there is only one bedroom and studio apartmentos the front of the building so there are no family buying units on the front of the building so we made those changes in response to our meetings. we thought that met their concerns. i explained that with modern architectural design and other modern design there is no measurable sound coming from 11th street into those units so i feel they are compatible uses. the incompatibility that is being discussed is coming from older buildings with no acoustic insill laigz and designed long ago. if i was a young person i would be delighted to live on 11th street and i went to clubs all the time. i think there are

lots of people that would like to live in the area so what happened in 2005 after we made the changes that the night time entertainment industry was requiring of it, which i was happy to do, and then they came back and any type of housing isn't compatible with night time uses so after i redesigned the building they decided that wasn't good enough, so what i am here to say with the proper unit mix such as what we're doing, proper acoustic design, proper mechanical system design housing should be allowed on that block and we have active permit on that site and i'm not sure with down zoning now -- what happened happen with our permit? normally you're approved to whatever is in effect at the time you submitted so i'm not sure what happened happen. thank you. >>i will call a few other names.

doug caldwell -- did i call you earlier? i'm sorry. kowg cane. robert, go ahead. and tim colin. >> thank you for hearing me. i am robert cole. i run sunset and produce festivals in the city and consider myself an ombudsmen and speaking for the entertainment community. i listened to mr. meeko comments and i appreciate the work he did with the community meetings. i do want to refute a couple of his assertions. one western soma is not the most intensive concentration entertainment in the city. it's the eastern mission district and nor club openings are happening there because of this process and several have left

and the paradise lounge has sat vacant in anticipation of what is happening. i don't know anyone that wants to open the vacant spaces and bring jobs to the area because of this uncertainty hanging over the head. when you have this uncertainty why would you want to build a business in that neighborhood? the other thing i would like to refute is that this whole idea that these residents didn't move into underneath a run way. slims is the best example of this. the folks that moved next to slims night club knew it was there since the 80's producing live music 689. it's one of the renowned music halls in san francisco and the one neighbor created thousands dollars of bills moved in after slims and

they established a precedent of entertainment in the area and i don't think fair to the entertainment community and 11th street and all clubs and no residents. we have other areas of the city and have mix use and i live on a block and i enjoy some peace and quiet and there are plenty of places in the city we have that and that's why we have a planning and entertainment commission and a process that works to resolves the disputes and that's the final thing i will say we do have a process in place. the entertainment commission came in five, six, seven years ago and many of the conflicts that were described from the 90's don't happen now because we have a legal process and not everyone is happy but it's a rational process and it works to resolve these disputes in a sunshine

infested above the board manner. thanks guys. >> hi. i am glen hyde and i am representing myself and i apologize for misrepresenting myself the last time i spoke. it was me trying it to get too much out. i said i was speak for example the commission and i wasn't and i would like that to be known and today as well. today i represent the neighbors and i don't see that we need to have a war. a lot of my work has been around better solutions to the problems that neighbors and entertainment are having. in my first year and a half with the entertainment commission i spent time talking about party buses who are extremely disruptive to neighborhoods and there is a bill that has been passed to manage under age drinking that is happening on the buss and we are going after

with regulating the alcohol being served on the buses on a state level so we don't have this disruption and we think with these things coming out of the entertainment commission as well as soft close closings we can minimize a lot of impact and i don't think there needs to be a war or there needs to be a complete incompatibility. i appreciate the gentleman who was talking about housing that is built well and entertainment working together. i also would like to say that i agree with brian tan to rezone 11th street with 3b or permitting entertainment as a use in the mug especially since there are residential buffers and i would like to speak about limited live only being placed on the folsom corridor. there are many small businesses that will have influx of people into the neighborhood and hopefully to serve the neighborhood and the neighbors better we can allow limited

live on the rcd as well so the corner businesses have all the opportunity to make it, and as far as i can tell the people who are moving into this area especially right now are many people involved in the tech sector and will continue to be in the tech sector and i see soma as being able to have growth similar to the mission and one of the things that is great there is that there is entertainment. it's full every night and we can only benefit these small businesses and continue to make them part of the community instead of a suing them from it. thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners. tim colin on behalf of the housing coalition. i spoke last week. we continue to be concerned by some of the design features with the plan intended to impede housing. i was

struck by the figure of 209 units: if i understand right that's the new net units created under this plan. i hadn't seen that before. this goes back to the history of it in regard to how much consensus and agreement and how inclusive the process was i would say i remember it a little differently. if it was as inclusive as it was claimed we don't understand how the community stabilization plan could have included a metering plan for housing, for jobs, a requirement for housing affordability that isn't found anywhere else in the city and highly controversial features that made into the plan. we agree there are positive features of the plan that deserve our support and your--

and we believe this raises questions about the adequacy of this plan to address long-term housing needs especially considering enormous investment into the corridor plan. we don't believe that western soma doesn't take advantage of the e eir capacity. we have talked about architects and rear yard setbacksis better understood as

a land banking plan than promote the type of urban youth we would like to see. we question why the zoning administrator is prevented from making rulings in western soma he might be able to make in other parts of the city and regarding that gap on impact fees where do the fees come from if a plan is designed to restrict development? we think it has a lot of work to do on it yet. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, i am kowg cane and hotel designer and developer. as you can see there is going to be a lot of conflict over this particular western soma district. i would like to call your attention to three zones of influence which have not been discussed today and those three zones are specifically

mid-market development and the grocery store zone. i call it a zone. that is from trader joes all the way to food co including rainbow and costco which is really the grocery shopping area of the city and to a lesser extent the eastern neighborhoods housing restrictions which work with the mid-market development to really encourage development in this area in western soma, and if you take housing off the table west of harrison then you're going to leave a vast number of lots that are right now parking lots, car lots, or under lose used -- facilities and could be housing down the line. as i recall the housing was going to be about 6,000 plus units and now 6,000 plus 200

units. it's not addressing the needs of the mid-market workers and those people that want to live close to housing. the other thing i wanted to bring up which wasn't mentioned here is hotels. i know cory and jim worked long and hard on this and i know hotels is a peripheral component but it's a major employer in san francisco and there are programs at san francisco state and city college and right now the hotels are restricted to 75 rooms and 25 along folsom and frankly it's just not going to have many hotels built under those restrictions. in fact i would suggest probably none and i think the hotel rooms count need to go beyond townsend and clear need for it. there is not enough in the city and major

employer and where you get jobs and no hotels along folsom and they have taken that out of the marketplace, so i think you've got to go upwardos both locations. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there additional public comment? okay. commissioners i will give you an option. if you would like to take a break now this item went longer and more in-depth and take a break with commissioner comments we can do that. i see some heads bobbing. so the commission is going to take a short break and come back to this item. thank you.> i wo everyone back to san francisco planning commission regular hearing for november 15, 2012. we left off in the middle of your regular calendar item 12, the western soma community plan informational presentation number two and we just concluded

public comment commissioners. >> commissioners, comments? questions? commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i appreciate the presentation. with the neighborhood districts in folsom seems like a logical place for that zoning. i'm a little bit concerned -- i would have to hear about no maximum density in some of the residential -- you know the red districts where the district residents are and some of them are finely grained and might be fine with machine is

comfortable in the two unit building and then there are eight unit building and i'm not sure this applies to new building or existing and if it's existing it could change the whole complexion or climate in a small quiet cult sack or red district, and the same for the parking maximums. i think i would need to know more about what it says and one size doesn't fit all and some places should have more parking allowed. i think mixed use makes sense. we dictated that we have housing above ground floor retail and it sits empty forever. just because you zone today for that, adjust because

you created it doesn't mean somebody is going to occupy the space, so having the flexibility to mix and match a little bit more with the idea or probably the idea that the lower floor has to be of a higher height and doesn't necessarily have to be retail or office or other things. that's probably a good idea. when we get into the area of 11th street, and i maybe wrong. i'm not sure i get all of the classifications right but i am sort of in agreement with option 1b that has been suggested by a lot of people. there is also a 1c -- i misspoke. i said 3b which is the option that would allow office but not new housing. it

would i believe allow entertainment as a right, and it would allow for entertainment that gets burned down or somehow demolished it could be put back again. maybe i could get clarification from staff the difference between 3b and c? i don't see the difference between the two of them. >> sure. 3b would basically rezone that corridor to dmo and allow office or entertainment and not residential. the difference with 3c it would also rezone the alleys adjacent to the corridor of rads and what that would do is then cause that 11th street corridor to fall within one of the 200 buffers around the rads that prohibits

night time entertainment use so you would effectively have the corridor and no new night time entertainment use or residential use and from the perspective that corridor would be static but it would introduce the office as a permitted use on that corridor. >> okay. i think i understand so option 3b is more favorable to the entertainment option but c would be -- would not allow new entertainment uses in there. i am not entirely sure of these but that's my inclination. my feeling is many of the spaces are already entertainment uses. legal is legal non conforping and allowed to go on and maybe there were exceptions. there was a gentleman who spoke,

mr. goodman and talked about a site he has and i'm not sure exactly where that is. is that within the aws pinses of the 11 ethstreet zoning. >> yes. essentially across the street from slims. >> okay. it's one of the spaces on the map that is marked in whatever color we're using -- >> it's actually not designated as a soft site because it is developed right now as the purple building but the proposal is to demolish that building and develop it as housing. >> the other consideration i might be interested in learning about is some kind of a middle ground if a project was begun 10 or five years ago and grandfathered if the investor decided to go go ahead and what

they were doing and housing and good instillation i am not opposed to that grandfathering thing but to encourage more housing in the future for what is in process i don't know if that is a good idea. it's a fairly small zone and we have the rest of the area for housing. although the other thing that concerns me a little bit is when you look at some of the zoning the sally apparently does not allow housing. am i correct about that -- housing or office? and you have areas that are pretty much pdr and i would have to look at that closer to make sure it makes sense to restrict things for those areas that are fairly large. many

many of the uses are already industrial uses and viable. that is one i would have to look at a little bit closer, and the other thing somebody brought up about the differences in restricting the zoning administrator as not the case for the rest of the city. i'm not sure why we're making this more restrictive on the powers of the zoning administrative and mentioned about restrictions on deck and these are some of the details we have to look at as we work our way through the plan and there is a lot of detail and this is the first day we are getting into the nuts and boltds but those are my general feelings on the overview. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. overall i am supportive of the plan as is. i think there should be some sort of compromise on 11. my

opinion is office is probably better suited to be compatible with night time entertainment rather than housing so i believe 3b points us in that direction but curious if other commissioners have thoughts. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a couple of questions on the proposal and the options on 11thth street. when we say something is grandfathered in and not allowable but grandfathered in like paradise lounge that is vacant could that be used as a club if this passes and it's not used now and stop its in the future. >> the code sets parameter for legal non conforming use. if you're legal when you went in you can continue to operate if the zoning changes and no longer permit but there are rules of abandonment and essentially if

you are vacant for more than three years you can be considered abandoned in terms of the use, so specifically yeah you can have turnover and tenants for some amount of time. it doesn't have to be the same tenant forever for legal non conforming use but at some point it's abandoned, or if the owners of that building put in a different use, put in a restaurant and later wanted to go back to a night time entertainment use they wouldn't be able to do that. if you have a legal non conforming use you need to keep it in operation without abandonment. >> so slims could close and come back as something different and allow to do that? >> yes. paradise was only paradise lounge for only so long. i can't remember what was there before that but it wasn't that long it was something different.

>> right. and under the proposals an entertainment use is proposed and allowed is there a cu for that or under the other options and entertainment use and allow -- >> under those options we're basically taking the sally zoning or the wmou zoning and extending it there and the districts south of harrison the idea is it would be opened up for night time entertainment use and unless we specifically made it conditional use on that corridor and for implementation purposes could be tricky, but as the options are before you it's permitted as a right. >> okay. i don't mind housing and maybe it's housing in these adjacency areas too and to approve with certain conditions like better sound proofing that could allow it to happen. i am concerned about the others and

two and three and have the entire corridor to be night time entertainment with the other spaces. that would happen and have this one block concentration of entertainment uses, so i don't mind 2a and 2b, but i would at least like to see if it's expanded beyond the current uses and maybe cu and something now a restaurant within that district becomes an entertainment use. that's not done as of right but as a cu process but the one are there grand forthed in -- >> intl something along those lines. >> i would offer a few comments and i am confused by the optionses and i get the tone there is restrictive compared to other plans that we looked at. i think mr. meeko pointed out why

clubs move to the area and my recollection in the 80's there were few residents there and body shops and pdr and there were people living there but you were there as well and that's why larger clubs and footprints ended up there, so whatever this turns into, it evolves into i think we should set it up so there is a little little flexibility, room for creativity, entrepreneurship. this plan is prescriptive. i'm not sure it allows for that or not but i'm looking forward to learning more and hearing more. commissioner borden. >> i think i kind of agree with what commissioner wu said -- 3b, i was looking at that and i do believe every week almost with restaurants that have music that

people consider too loud, issues in the corridor and people complaint about restaurant usage and don't necessarily have amplified music and sound and i know there is a challenge of having more lively restaurants sometimes in neighborhood commercial corridors. i personally don't like when too many things are legal non conforping. i think we always see that as a challenge in the code. if there is a preponderance of use in a area and ideally like the part of the plan and what is the existing and that is my rational for favoring something like 3b. the other thing i do believe that office is more compatible use with the night time use and day time use and you can have night time use and create other sources of income and revenue for those buildings or property owners so that the two uses

could co-exist and i know entertainment has the peaks and valleys for the financial success for them and having other options in the neighborhood would be worth while as well, and i think it would encourage restaurants and other uses, not just night life to be in the neighborhood. maybe a restaurant that has live entertainment. i do have a couple questions -- i saw -- you mentioned about no vertical architecture elements. i just wanted to understand what is the rational behind that? >> sure. so there were a number of design components as part of the neighborhoods that were codified, and one of those things tended to be, and if you look at the urban form elements of the area plans and mission and soma there is a emphasis