at? we have no way to judge at this point what most commercial uses really means. if someone came to us with a commercial use above the second level that happened to be something, they could argue that it follows that most commercial uses are prohibited. how do we know that is okay or not ok? it describes the neighborhood commercial district. it is followed by the actual table that sets forth the prescriptive controls for the district. while it says most commercial uses are prohibited, it goes on to say that you can have an outdoor activity area.

it is no way limited by level. commissioner moore: excuse me. on the code discussion with the zoning administrator, my question to you is that there is a complete misunderstanding of what happens between the ground floor and all of the other stores above it. it has been a description of previous approvals that deal with a hotel occupancies and residential units as these have disappeared. have they been satisfied someplace else? >> those other uses have not disappeared and it is a requirement that they maintain the minimum of open space usable

that they are doing on the deck. they may want to put it on the overhead to show that the entire deck is not devoted to the outdoor activity area. it is also devoted to the open space for the other uses in the building. commissioner moore: since we all are quite familiar with shielding or needing to shield occupancies for the presence of alcohol and other things, by the very nature, the people are not able to participate and i think it would be rather detrimental for both facilities to be next to each other. it is a big question that presents itself to me as the delta between quiet sit-down for eating and those of 290 people maximum suggested occupancy.

it not only raises the question about structural integrity, that has the predominant use of the five floors of occupancy. if i understood commissioner miguel correctly, dining is being served from the ground floor kitchen. i think the elevator and stairs would continue to be occupied which would potentially be in conflict with existing in the emergency. i think this project cannot be discussed until all of those particular issues have been fully examined so we have a realistic application in front of us. and it leaves every other question open as well. >> on the overhead now, plans of the roof deck, to the right is the area for the subject used,

the conditional use. to the left of the additional open space for the nine residential units. i don't know if there is any other open space or if this is the entire open space. >> there is a rear yard area that is designated near the original application as some open space. >> there is additional open space, and in regard to the exiting, there is no outstanding enforcement issue from the fire department or department of building inspection. we don't like enforcement cases, we don't like having to bring things before you for review after the fact. but one of the benefits of that if i can collect that is that these issues have been displayed. the building department and fire department have been acceptable

of the exiting for the use. should the commission approve this, it would comply with the relevant fire and building code requirements. commissioner miguel: can i require on this line? commissioner antonini: i havne'en't finished yet. president olague: maybe we go back to commissioner miguel's comments then we move forward. commissioner miguel: under 7c, uses -- it's talking of permitted as located on tehe same lot. that pretty much says it in my mind. it doesn't deal with floors. ok. just as where i am, i would be

willing to support or make a motion to approve the conditional use with a maximum of 175 person occupancy and the other conditions as noted by the department and a six-month review. i'll make the motion. commissioner antonini: well, thank you. i am in agreemnent with that. i would ask the project sponsor, the six month review would also, perhaps, look at the sound situation. that would be part of the review. what i am going to comment on has to do with the sound issue. if that is acceptable, that as

part of the review. >> yes, commissioners. if you like, i also wanted to remind you that our acoustical engineer is here if you have any questions for them. i do think that i wanted to speak on behalf of the management. we are more and willing to exempt the reduction -- than willing to accept the reduction. we think it is a good compromise. the difference between where 120 at 299 is about -- i have my notes here. commissioner miguel: s wasn'tplit -- i wasn't splitting mathematics. >> between 175 and 200 is

acceptable, sir. commissioner antonini: there are only one or two issues involved. and the primary issue is the sound situation. of discussion at this hearing. we had some studies by salter and associates, who have done it for years and years, and are highly respected, and we have oversight with the guru of noise in san francisco. they also had a peer review. another firm more or less agreed with the findings. the only difference is they said there could be some sound the would be enough that somebody was aware there was sound. if you have anything above ambient, it is possible someone could have an awareness of somebody talking above the

ambient level. the studies that were taken showed an increase of 1.7 and 2 decibels, well below the level that anybody could feel that anything was a sound that would be unacceptable, which was something like 3.5 decibels, and that would have to be fingernails on a blackboard or some very obnoxious sound. for most increase in noise above ambient under a decimals -- under 8 decibels is ok. the only issue is the noise, and i think it is well addressed by our acoustical engineers in the city and county. the other issues that were brought up. one was whether this is proper before us. i think it is. the other is does it set a city

would president. i believe we are dealing with a specific incidents of the roof deck in a specific place. there may be others that will come before us in the future. in certain parts of the city, the threat of a roof deck is fairly slim, especially close to the pacific ocean. i think you will see very limited times of the year, two or three days. i feel this is a very good project, and they do not see an impact on the neighbors, based upon the sound study. i am very supportive of the motion. commissioner sugaya: just to follow up on the roof deck situation, the area that is devoted to the residential hotel is outlined as shown.

are there either planning or building department requirements for how that roof deck area it is supposed to be separated or set apart from the other use, which is the dining and entertaining facility? because all i see here are planters. >> we are going to be working with the project sponsor to get some sort of hard scaping on the final set of plans that will physically separate the open space for the residential units from the outdoor activity area. if you wanted to condition it in some way, we are open to your comments on that. commissioner sugaya: another question. the men's and women's restrooms are within that area. are they not accessible to the patrons of the restaurant? >> that is still a moving line

on the plans. we had the project sponsor draft something showing a general area. on the final plan, we will have it accessible to the patrons as well. commissioner sugaya: so is the bathroom supposed to be for the patrons or for the residents of the sro? >> if i may, each resident has a dedicated bathroom. commissioner sugaya: i understand that. but we are on the deck. >> that is a good question. i think that if there was a need -- if you are suggesting we might -- are you advocating for both, or one, or the other? commissioner sugaya: both. there is also a comment that outdoor barbecue extension -- i thought there was no cooking on the upper floor. >> we did not find anything in

the code that prohibited cooking in the outdoor activity area. specifically, the code definition of outdoor activity area says food related activities, not limited to eating, drinking, dancing, etc.. commissioner sugaya: but it has been presented to us that all food preparation is in the restaurant. >> predominantly, food corporation will be in the main restaurant area, using the outdoor barbecue area to reheat or refresh. is that right? >> it is for keeping warm only. commissioner sugaya: but there is nothing in our conditions to prohibit cooking on the back. is that correct? and we are also allowing a bar to be out there. >> we are allowing an outdoor

activity area which offers a beverage service at a bar that is service only, so it is not a walk up pay at the bar. it is for the tables in the outdoor activity area. commissioner sugaya: when entertainment happens without the tables, how is alcohol served? >> there will be no other entertainment allowed on the roof deck. that is in the conditions. commissioner sugaya: they could take the tables away and have a party and bring food up from the restaurant and serve up a hall on the deck. we do not have any conditions that prohibit -- >> dancing or something? commissioner sugaya: i was not thinking of that exactly. scott sanchez: we prohibited

anything we classified as other entertainment under the planning code. commissioner sugaya: does that include having a reception? scott sanchez: no. commissioner sugaya: i am at the point where there is a motion on the floor that the conditions seem to be so loose that we do not have any control, really, over what takes place. there is no prohibition on food being prepared. there is no prohibition on a bar being set up. there is no prohibition on having a reception. entertainment is an unspecific term. all of this begins to contribute to the noise factor. that is where i am having a problem coming to even support the current motion, without getting into a string of conditions which i am not prepared to sit here for the next three hours to try to figure out what they are.

>> if you limit the occupancy, there would be limited by the same number as if it was a restaurant. to clarify the bar issue, is it correct that what you are saying -- it is not a bar you can walk up to and get a drink. it is servicing the tables only. there is no school. is that what you're saying? >> that is correct. >> there is alcohol served, but two people sitting up there. commissioner antonini: in other words, i have to get a hold of a waiter or waitress. >> that is correct. that is the application that is in front of us. for further clarity, they already have their bar license. they are already authorized of a

bar and restaurant. commissioner sugaya: also, the conclusions and recommendations are not as vague as you think. it does say they are concerned about potential disturbance from patrons, voices, sound system, and enforcement, and that the criteria would still allow conditions where patrons would be clearly audible. screening may be inadequate. without a reliable means of monitoring our enforcement -- that is not defined. they do have a set of recommendations. again, i do not want to -- i

guess it seems we have a situation where there could be a lot more conditions for this particular project. to sit here to try to figure out what all of those are, from what you just said, is problematic. commissioner moore: i would agree with commissioner sugaya. what is in front of us is not ready for prime time. i am quickly looking at the suggested location of the toilets on the roof. there is not even a wall there in which the plumbing might run. it is just drawn somewhere on the roof to be determined later. i do believe that an application requires a specific, accurate delineation if there are other uses in this building

which need to be accommodated. i do not think that is in front of you. mr. medjool owns the building and can be specific about his use. however, you cannot ignore that you have a mixed use building with demands that need to be managed in order for the project to come forward. going back to the location of the suggested toilets, at this moment they are not going anywhere. there is not even a common party wall where that plumbing would be coming down. it does not even sit with the existing prominent. that aside, i believe the conditions which could be worked out between the parties are not for us to work out and dr. around. i am not prepared to support the

motion or approve the project as it is in front of us today. commissioner fong: i did have the pleasure of spending nearly two hours yesterday at the buddhist center. it is a charming little spot. but i think we have in front of us and attempt to correct something that may have been wrong. i do not feel it is our role to penalize someone. i think it is our objective to try to help this person make corrections. in my opinion, they have made changes. they voluntarily reduced the roof deck by 25%. they changed the service so the bar is not walk up. the buddhist center had presented a list of conditions they were willing to agree to, but the majority of them have been addressed.

i think they made an earnest effort. i think a comment was made several times. medjool and the cinema may be responsible for the revitalization of the mission. those restaurants have brought people who were going and raised in san francisco to the mission that maybe not been there in decades. i think that is important to recognize. not necessarily to reward, but to recognize that. it would be a shame, i think, to not approve this. i lean toward approval with the conditions made here. i do have concern that was specifically mentioned about noise at night, especially with the mechanical room. i was over there yesterday and it seems to be enclosed in some sort of parapet. i wonder if there is an

opportunity to do more sound dampening their to appease the neighbors. it is very close quarters. you create this hard surface ago. i understand that. i also want to make a comment that had made about rooftop bars and restaurants. are fantastic. we should have more of them. we do not clearly define that, and i do not know how we get there, but it would be great to make some definitions about rooftop access which is allowable. i would be happy to participate in that kind of conversation. i am supportive with the conditions. scott sanchez: i just wanted to clarify three points. when i spoke before about the potential fire issues, i believe

this is one outstanding notice of violation from the department of building inspection because the debt has not been established on plans, but i am not aware of life safety issues. had there been any, the deck would not have been able to be in operation. i had to clarify that comment. in regards to vice president mighel's -- miguel's restriction suggestion, i want to clarify that would be for the activity area, and not including the residential space. vice president miguel: correct. scott sanchez: i believe the bathrooms are existing bathrooms, not proposed. there is discussion centering around how we better delineate the distinction between the outdoor space for the residential and for the outdoor activity area, just to clarify

those two items. commissioner sugaya: just to clarify -- i am not totally against this project. i am just trying to get some conditions in here that come closer to satisfying some of the complaints we have heard, especially around noise. and the issues of how the rooftop is going to be configured has not been totally iron out. there seemed to be some loose ends. i would be more comfortable if within the motion itself we could have something come back to us. that would be additional work the staff has already said they will be doing with the project sponsor. if we could see what those additional conditions -- i would like to have the noise issue taken into consideration of the but more.

and obviously you were going to take a look at how the rooftop is going to be laid out with some kind of separation or permanent -- something that separates the required open space for the sro units from the other area. vice president miguel: you are not asking for a continuance. you are just asking for a report back. just informational. commissioner sugaya: yes. vice president miguel: i am perfectly ok. we could get information about the barrier between the open areas. the bathrooms are going to be used by both sections. there is no barrier. if you go into the bathroom here, you can go out of the

bathroom there. those type of things -- this is going to come up again. scott sanchez: would that be covered in the six month report commissioner miguel is proposing? or are you suggesting a different time from? vice president miguel: i would suggest that the department is ready to move ahead. just to the commissioners, informational. we have done that with certain things in the past. >> so when we finalize the plans and the details, we would get that to you. vice president miguel: right. that is totally separate from the six month review.

president olague: are you done with your comments? commissioner sugaya: i am just concerned about the sro's space. it seems like it should be as private as possible. if it requires some kind of key access, that should be taken into consideration. >> you are directing us to make sure there is a strong separation of the private area? ok. commissioner moore: i will ask the commission to continue this particular matter. it is partially because we have two sides with a large number of people recommending their different points of views. both parties, for me, have points to make which have points i can support. however, the middle ground is not for me to decide.

the middle ground is in those parties to speak to each other and present the result of a neutrally hammer out agreement. i am not going to sit here and do that for them, and i am not going to do that by deferring to the department to work it out. the department has recommended to this commission to approve the project as it is in front of us. we raised questions by which we opened the door for the department to do additional work. i believe the work itself is between the groups who will in the future need to coexist, that will in the future need to get along with each other long term, that are acceptable to both parties. but we're adding to it is that the sro, a mixed use component of this building, is being addressed both on the open space and the roof deck. i am supportive of the basic idea of this restaurant to get its approval.

but i put the burden on how to work it out on the applicant. i will ask for this commission to continue this project. commissioner sugaya: second. commissioner antonini: i would like to make one comment. >> for the record, let me state that a motion for a continuance -- that a motion for a continuance -- it takes precedent over off on the floor. commissioner sugaya: i withdraw my second. i do not know what the circumstances of the privy it -- the previous agreement with the cinema was made. i do not know if it was extortion, as has been suggested, or anything of that nature. but there seemed to be some kind of agreement that was reached in that situation. we've not heard any