Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jones Permit Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues hearing on 'Jones' at 620 Jones Street amid neighborhood safety and noise concerns
Summary
The commission continued the Jones (620 Jones / rooftop patio) permit application after SFPD and neighbors raised unresolved issues about security staffing, ADA/fire egress, noise testing and crowd control; applicant agreed to the continuance to provide additional technical details.
The Entertainment Commission continued consideration of an application from Peter Glickstern for a new place-of-entertainment called Jones (620 Jones Street, with a rooftop patio at 560 Geary) after staff, SFPD and neighborhood speakers identified multiple unresolved technical and safety issues.
Deputy Director Jocelyn Kane told commissioners staff had received the application and planning’s conditional use authorization but that some exhibits and proposed conditions required clarification. Applicant Peter Glickstern said Jones would operate as a restaurant, lounge and event space with DJs and a rooftop patio, estimating an occupancy near 400. He described a private alley entrance and said the concept would not be a nightclub or seek an after-hours permit.
Central Station permanent officer Steve Mathias and other officers raised a list of missing or incomplete items in the application and security plan: whether entertainment would include bands versus DJs, specifics of sound amplification, results of acoustical testing and reports, crowd-control and queuing plans for the private alley, numbers and training of security staff, ADA access and emergency egress details, and parking/valet plans. Mathias also noted the site’s residential density and the need to address potential noise leakage from a courtyard/patio area.
Neighborhood representatives (Greater Nob Hill, Safer Streets) urged the commission to deny or condition approval, citing dense residential buildings directly adjacent to the proposed patio, concerns about alley queuing and the adequacy of fire egress, and recent examples elsewhere of venues morphing into large nightclubs. The applicant asked for a continuance to provide the requested technical information; the commission voted to continue the item, with commissioners noting the public must be allowed to comment on any newly submitted materials.
What’s next: The applicant will return with requested documentation (acoustic testing reports, clarified floor plans and ADA/fire-exit compliance, detailed security staffing and training plans and parking/line control procedures). The commission will review those materials and reopen the item with public notice.
