Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves multiple storefronts and massage uses; lists votes at a glance
Summary
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Sept. 24 approved several conditional uses — including a cafe at 990 Polk and restaurant upgrades at La Palma — and cleared multiple massage‑establishment authorizations amid debate about enforcement and hours. The meeting also produced a series of votes on demolition and discretionary review items.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted Thursday to approve a cluster of conditional uses and building‑project permits while also taking up broader policy questions about demolition and housing replacement.
The most immediate approvals included a conditional‑use authorization for an ice cream and coffee shop at 990 Polk Street, which staff said would occupy a newly finished 2,850‑square‑foot storefront in a 110‑unit low‑income senior building. Planning staffer Kevin Guy told commissioners the locally owned business would enliven a restaurant‑underserved segment of Polk Street and that the building owner and mayoral economic offices had submitted letters of support. After public comment focused on leasing concerns, Commissioner Moore moved to approve; the motion carried on a roll‑call vote (ayes recorded; item approved). The commission also unanimously approved La Palma’s request to formalize an outdoor seating area and walk‑up window at 2884 Fourth Street, a long‑running neighborhood business seeking modest expansion.
Massage‑establishment conditional uses drew more debate. At 723 Taraval (Perfect Foot Massage Center) and 2443 Lombard (Perfect Health Center), staff said the new ordinance requires additional findings (Planning Code §790.6) including a Department of Public Health permit and measures to maintain storefront transparency and visibility. Commissioners raised enforcement concerns about change of ownership and whether a string of similar uses might undermine neighborhood character. After discussion over partitions, hours, and monitoring, the commission approved the Taraval application (vote recorded 5–1) and approved the Lombard application with extended hours (10 a.m.–10 p.m.) and conditions—removing an internal partition and requiring a one‑year review (vote recorded 6–1).
Votes at a glance (formal recorded outcomes) — all outcomes reported as recorded in the hearing: [Each entry lists the agenda case and the commission action] - Case 2009.0688C (990 Polk St.) — conditional use authorization for ice‑cream/coffee shop: approved (roll‑call approval recorded SEG 349–365). - La Palma (2884 Fourth St.) — outdoor seating and walk‑up window: approved unanimously (SEG 1775–1791). - Perfect Foot Massage Center (723 Taraval) — conditional use: approved (vote 5–1; SEG 1627–1641). - Perfect Health Center (2443 Lombard) — massage CU with extended hours and removal of partition; 10–10 hours allowed with one‑year review: approved (vote 6–1; SEG 2359–2406). - Bayview map amendments (technical rezoning) — staff recommendation approved unanimously (SEG 2568–2583). - 673–675 40 Fourth Ave. (demolition & new construction) — commission denied the demolition (motion to take DR and disapprove demolition passed 5–1; SEG 4806–4809); commissioners then made a separate advisory action to take discretionary review and adopt staff modifications for the replacement project in the event an appeal overturns the demolition denial (advisory motion passed 4–2; SEG 4963–4981). - 772 Wisconsin St. (addition) — commission declined to take discretionary review and approved the project as proposed (motion passed; SEG 5660–5673). - 2642–2644 Hyde St. (rear balcony legalization) — commission declined to take discretionary review and approved the building permit/legalization (motion passed 6–0; SEG 6071–6086).
Why it matters: The votes underscore two patterns: staff is continuing to recommend locally oriented retail and food uses as tools to activate corridors, and commissioners are wrestling with how to regulate a recent wave of massage establishments (new code makes many such uses subject to conditional use authorization). At the same time, the commission is confronting higher‑level policy questions about demolition, replacement housing and whether the Planning Code should be amended to require stricter replacement of sound rental units.
What’s next: Several items will return if appealed (notably the 40 Fourth Avenue matter) and staff expects follow‑up on implementation details for enforcement of the massage ordinance and a possible program for expedited environmental‑review support.
