>> the planning commission is back in session. if i could remind everyone to turn off their cell phones and any devices that might sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, you are not on item number 13. this is for 2516 mission st., a request for a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. i'm from the planning department staff. you have before you a request for a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 303 to

legalize an outdoor activity area on the roof of existing outdoor bar, other entertainment venue within the mission and height and bulk district. the subject property was authorized to construct a tourist hotel with 24 rooms and reconstructed nine residential hotel rooms with a ground floor commercial restaurant. the required open space for the nine residential hotel units through section 135 us build is approximately 958 square feet. it was to be provided either in the rear yard, the ground floor, or a proposed freeze back. on february 10th, 2000, the planning commission disapproved of outdoor activity area associated with the restaurant proposed to be located on a portion of the ground rearguard area.

-- or your yard area. the roof deck began operating and outdoor activity area at some point after 2005. february 20th, 2009, a notice of violation was issued by the department that the illegal commercial activity was occurring on the subject property on the roof. this was followed by another notice of violation and the nile of referral to director for hearing on april -- denial of referral to the director of hearing. the appeal was rejected by project sponsor and on may 4th, 2009, a c.u. was filed to legalize the outdoor activity area. the appeal process continue forward, and during the process,

the department considered arguments put forward by the appellant and concluded a c.u. could be sought by the project sponsor. in 2009, the board of appeals heard the case and the matter was continue to call the chair to allow the property owner to seek conditional use authorization to legalize the outdoor activity area on the roof. this is a matter before you today. the project sponsor will reduce the area of the roof deck as used as an accessory to the restaurant to approximately 2477 square feet. food will be prepared predominately in the main kitchen and we he did in the outdoor area. beverages will be provided to a service bar available only to employees. there'll be no entertainment other than background music that will not exceed noise limits.

the proposed hours operations are monday through thursday, 3:00 until o'clock p.m.. saturday from 11:00 a.m. until 1:30 p.m.. all hours of operation are weather-dependent. consider that the project sponsor has installed acoustic pairs and conducted sound testing. the conclusion of the review and sound test were the use of the outdoor activity area resulted in less than significant noise level and it was issued a categorical exemption. the project sponsor has further propose to mitigate or reduce any potential disturbance of neighboring residents by reducing the area of the deck toward the mission street area away from the western residential property. and also including some

landscaping as buffers. there will be no entertainment and the outdoor activity area and at the music sound system has an automatic shut off installed. staff recommends approval with conditions and the basis for that recommendation is the conclusions of the review found less than significant noise levels, the acoustical sound barriers were installed, the deck will be reduced away from the residential portion of a lot, and the project permit the continued operation of its established, locally-owned business that can contribute to the viability of the overall mission street neighborhood, commercial transition zoning district. the plan meets all applicable code requirements and is desirable for the broader surrounding neighborhood,

providing a commercially operated open space. after the staff report was submitted, we received nine letters in opposition. eight from the san francisco buddhist center and one from former neighbor, seeking concerns regarding noise. and eight letters in support of the project, predominantly from people associated with the parent teachers association. that concludes my presentation. staff is available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> commissioners and director and president, my name is victor marquez and i will be speaking on behalf of the project sponsor. by way of introduction, since i have not been here in some time, i used to come regularly,

several commissions ago. i wanted to briefly give you a bit of my background. i am the former president, national president of the hispanic national bar association, the first openly gay president, and i've worked across the country as the former white house liaison for that organization. i was the executive director of san francisco la raza for five years and i am the general counsel for the mexican museum here in san francisco as well as for the la raza lawyers association where i had to terms of the president. i also served on the board of the lgbt center and was the first latino on the board. i'm working to develop a community center that will house a child care program as

well as a foster homes program for young girls in the mission district on 24th street coupled with senior housing, with mission neighborhood centers and mercy charities as the developing sponsors. i am working to rehabilitate the new mission theater. last, but not least, and terms of relevance, i'm also heading up a development of the san francisco de laborprogram. i say all of this to you to share with you that i thought about this when i was approached to represent this project. i decided to take it. for me, this is in line with the kind of work i do. i want to thank the staff for all their diligence and hard work in this project, giving it

before you. i am here representing the workers and their families. staffas done a thorough job. this is not only a restaurant. it is an icon. it has not forgotten to give back to the people who were there prior to coming on board. it has contributed to the revitalization of a section of the community. i have submitted along with eight letters of support about 70 signatures from local residents and businesses within a 300 foot radius from the establishment. it is family run and operated.

it is one of the largest employers in the area. a truly diverse workforce. it provides a safe, healthy environment for workers, guests, and local residents, as well as neighboring businesses. you will hear from local representatives in the categories. since it opened in 2004, it has had zero fire department violations, zero police violations. there have been no stabbings or killings inside or outside its parameters. i have very tight security enforcement. furthermore, this is not one of the projects that has added to the gentrification of the mr. district, but the opposite. it deploys as a diverse group of hispanics, asians, african americans, and others.

a strong gay and lesbian component, and a trans gender individual who has now gone from the sex change of a woman to a man with the support of staff and management. the deeper sense and of the work force is women. the longevity of employees is reflective of the management and the love employees have for the management. there are many employees that have left and come back. it has a good sense of training and welcomes people who may have hit the bottom into the restaurant. they have been trained on site. there are former drug addicts and homeless persons, who have been welcomed with open arms and then put to an extensive training program. they are happily employed there today. we have every ethnic background,

and it is intergenerational. over the past seven years, we have paid $5 million in payroll taxes and one. -- $5 million in peril and $1.5 million in payroll taxes. in has been a long road to get here. everybody has been pulled in one direction or another by the politics of this project. we hope this politics will be left behind and workers and their families can continue to prosper. the original notice of violation has gone to the appeal process. we are here to correct and fix the problem. we have added acoustical barriers. we have the independent

acoustical engineer here to answer any questions you might have. and we have an independent consultant that worked with staff. you heard there will be no dj, no live music. we have expanded the space over 1000 square feet. there is community outreach. there is no open bar. i have tried it myself. there have been different outfits and disguises i have warned. they will not serve me no matter what. there may be some questions in terms of potential additional concessions. we are open to have that dialogue with you.

we asked approve the conditional use. in particular, an outdoor area permited in the mission neighborhood commercial zoning district. the area on the roof is subject to this conditional use authorization. it is consistent with the mission district, with its desirable use. it fits well within the use of the neighborhood. i would say the attorneys can disagree. but at the end of the day, it is stuff's recommendation, and we are ready, willing, and able to submit to stuff the recommendations as they are being proposed to you.

i am available for questions. >> we did have one group request for 15 minutes of time. the we have them so we can read the section of rules -- i should have asked for it sooner. i am sorry. it allows the opposition to speak and talk. i want people to understand the process better. >> this is under appendix a of your rules and regulations. it is roman numeral three. presentation of opposition to the proposal but organized opposition not to exceed 15 minutes -- by organized opposition not to exceed 15 minutes, with a minimum of three speakers. president olague: those who are

speaking the project are usually allowed at least 15 minutes to speak for a project, so we think it is only fair to allow time for the opposition to speak. in other words, if those in favor of the project are not allowed that same block -- if you art against the project, you are allowed that. it is just a commission rule. >> if i may, i would expedite my presentation so you would not fall asleep, to about 9.5 minutes. if i could reserve that time for other folks -- i apologize. thank you. president olague: we are going to hear from the block of time. then we are going to limit -- we have a huge stack of cards, so we are going to limit comment to two minutes. if there are instances where

people would prefer to show a group stand up in support or a group stand up opposing it, that would save us all time and we could start our deliberations of here. if you want to come up and have your two minutes, that is your right. you can do so. however you guys want to do it. >> good afternoon. my name is sue hester. the implementation is citywide. you are asking to interpret planning code conditions to allow rooftop accessory uses throughout the city, because you cannot make a decision that just applies to this site. the implication is that any restaurant that exists legally on the ground floor can have an excess reuse, no matter what the height of the building is. this project has never been legal. it never got approval before it

was built. we believe it cannot be illegal unless the code is changed. the bar use was never presented to the planning commission. when this building was built, there had been a fire damaged 9 unit sro. it went through the planning commission without opposition in two phases. the first was the replacement of the sro, which everybody agrees is a good thing, plus 21 hostile rooms. they came back a couple of months later because there was a technical error in the documents. when they came back the second time, the planning commission considered a project with outdoor activity, and rejected it. i want to show you the code provisions in our brief. we had to pull the record

together. this is what you have as my big attachment. this is a code for the zoning as it was. bar/restaurant is permitted on 1 and 2. it is not permitted on a third story and above. the eastern neighborhoods went through a rezoning process. the code changed about what was allowed. there was an evaluation of what uses are permitted. bar on the first and second. full-service restaurant first and second. nothing allow a third story and above. this applies to this project today. that is the code today and the code as it was when this project

is approved. when the planning commission considered the project, they did not have anything before them except for a residential hotel room replacement, a 78 foot -- square-foot restaurant or bar space -- they could continue to operate that on the first floor. that is a large facility. the planning commission never considered a rooftop bar. what the planning department did when they issued the notice of violation was the issue the first notice on february 20, 2009. they said subjects zoning does not allow bars or restaurant uses above the second story. this was not written by me. the zoning administrator handled

this case. this started the process at the board of appeals. this commission has never dealt with this. the commission did deal with the project approval. the plans were presented to you late. we just got a lot of the files. this is the rear yard. there were 13 to top tables. it was specifically disapproved by the planning commission. that was the last time the planning commission considered this project as it was built. the consider the following year a different project, a five story project, and they approved it.

they had a roof deck on the top for the residential uses. the sro units had to be replaced and there were various other types of housing. the planning commission has said when it considered neighborhood context you cannot do it. in 2005, they started doing events. it has gone beyond a minor allocation. thank you. >> my name is nancy. i am an architect. i also practiced at the san francisco buddhist center. i am there a couple of times a week. i count on it to keep my mind and body healthy.

the project you are talking about today has a history of production. it has gone before planning commissions twice before, maybe three times. the outdoor space is rejected. this is not compatible with outside residential use and there is a need for peace and quiet. the plan submitted to you in the staff report, for some reason, i think are misleading and could be missed representative. -- misrepresentative. there is a full mezzanine level and two levels of housing. you have four, with a rooftop bar above the fourth level. that is not to code. i would like to say that the

floor plan for the roof deck i think is misrepresenting. the planning commission requires that the nine sro units have open space of about 958 square feet. that is what this plan shows. this space is to be secure and private from public access. i have hatched in an area with public access for the toilets and the egress. dwellings need open space. this is what the planning commission and planning department rules on. this is not 500 strangers having a drink. there needs to be space left over for a activity.

the building code says 15 square feet per person for dining, which gives you an occupancy load of about 120 people. also, there is an existing bar that we feel should be represented because it is not consistent with their liquor license. we feel they are not entitled to the view from the rooftop bar. we would like this project to be treated like any other project. there are many restaurants that succeed without a rooftop bar. the joule can do it as well. thank you. >> i am the chairwoman of the board of the san francisco buddhist center, and one of the co-owners. i have worked for years and

equitable community development. i want to give you some context. on the first of the uses that of been talking about -- we have been on barley street since 1993. we are an early investor in the stability of the neighborhood. i would like to think about this block. it would be different if it was a one-off. but we have san francisco buddhist center and residences all around here. the one she did in yellow said they wanted control on the rooftop when we did neighborhood organizing back in the board of appeals. here we had a cinema and a large restaurant, and an already unusual see you -- cu for

outdoor dining. then we have an 800 square foot ground floor restaurant and bar, which we want to coexist with. we want them to be successful. but the rooftop adds 120 more diners. that is on the roof, not counting the ground floor restaurant already. that is a lot of load for us. another key would be the new entertainment complex, which we share a high wall with. it is an unusual block. we appeal to you to consider the context and the cumulative impact. this is our arts and crafts project. here we are, 93 at the baseline.

the planning code says no on ability beyond the premises. there is a police code allowing eight decibels above ambient. if we keep doing this, we have -- this is ascending decibels. we have the cinema. we have the ground-floor restaurant. the fan alone added a tremendous amount of ambient. a spike of police reports are in near record in 2009. people signed a petition that were disturbed by the spike of unmitigated, uncontrolled use. the notice of violation brought that down. but now we are wondering. if you permit this with the loose conditions that do not restrict the use at all, this could change from now.

there are sound barriers now. we appreciate those. the owners changed. all we have our assurances. we do not have strict conditions. we have been assured of a quiet rooftop restaurant. that would be about a 15 square foot allowable area, maximum 120 people, not the 299 people staff had in the recommendation. that is a huge difference. the medjool web page says we have free rooftop parties for hostel guests and it is available for large rental events up to 200 persons. that is not a quiet restaurant event. we do not want to see a special events akin to the time of spike