21-Feb-2013 (Thu)
Wherein we'd like your help to kill a condo project.

It sure would suck if two dozen more million-dollar condo units went in right across the street from Slim's and DNA Lounge, wouldn't it?

SFBG: Clubs vs. Condos

The commission heeded the recent recommendation of the nightlife community and District 6 Sup. Jane Kim to modify the plan to prohibit new residential development on the 11th Street block where tipsy visitors to Slim's, DNA Lounge, and other big clubs clog the sidewalks every weekend. But it also voted to grandfather in a 24-unit residential project at 340 11th Street, which everyone now involved in closed-door negotiations simply calls "the purple building," a two-story masonry structure built in 1907 that is awaiting demolition. [...]

For example, just one neighbor of Slim's [...] has waged a relentless campaign that has forced temporary shutdowns and cost the club more than $750,000 in mediation costs, Alan said, despite the club's sound buffering and general compliance with local codes.

Alan said that it's simply unthinkable to add more than two dozen new homeowners to that busy block in a condominium building that only allows access on 11th Street.

We sure would prefer that the developers who now own that building put in retail and office space instead of condos. This would help grow the daytime business in the neighborhood, which would be good for the local restaurants (including ours) without giving the nightclubs yet another source of conflict.

The hearing is this Monday, Feb 25, at 1:30pm at City Hall.

Even if you can't attend, we need you to send some email to the Board of Supervisors to help prevent this insanity.

CMAC has some suggestions on what your email should say. Points 1, 3 and 5 are the really, really important ones:

To: David.Chiu@sfgov.org, Jane.Kim@sfgov.org, Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org

1. No more residential permits on 11th Street between Folsom and Harrison. History tells us that residential and entertainment uses need some space around them, or conflict results. 11th street is a historic space for entertainment and there is no space on that block for residential.

2. Limited Live Performance Permits should be allowed to have live entertainment inside a tiny area up to 10 PM. A restaurant that wants a singer, piano or violin or a bar that wants jazz, needs this "Limited Live Performance" permit. Folsom Street and numbered cross streets (7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th) should be allowed to have this permit. Live music should flourish, not be prohibited.

3. Folsom Street should be allowed more entertainment permits. Folsom Street is the new "main street" of San Francisco, paving the way for a nighttime economy that is helping our economic recovery. Why not expand permits and allow another Brain Wash or Cat Club?

4. Folsom Street needs commerce above the first floor. With conditional use authorization, Folsom Street should be allowed to permit restaurants and lounges on the second or third floor. San Francisco should open the door to innovative new places to eat.

5. Expand the sunset date on entertainment permits from 3 years to 5 years. If an entertainment venue closes for more than 3 years in SOMA, it is gone forever. Let's be more supportive of retaining our entertainment venues in San Francisco and let it be 5 years. This saves the Paradise and Raw Hide from disappearing and hurts no one.


3 Responses:

  1. nooj says:

    I sent the emails, and I got a response! Referring to points 1, 3, and 5, Scott Wiener says,

    I agree and support these changes to the plan.

  2. John Adams says:

    I sent an email. It was nice to be able to write this and say 'as a homeowner... I do not support...'

    We'll see if they take any of these letters seriously.

  3. Josh says:

    Whoa, hadn't see that: Congrats, John.