from that particular establishment. so it seems like there was some point a willingness to work on some kind of mutually agreeable solution. that is the reason i am at this point seconding commissioner moore's motion to continue. >> to what date? commissioner moore: as quickly as possible to work out the issues at hand. the direction to both parties is this commission is prepared to support it based on the idea that you will work with each other. no more complaining. no more he said-so she said. get down to those things that really matter. it is not just going to be one way or the highway. you have to work out.

otherwise, you will run into the same thing as before. people start to accuse each other of not being socially or racially diverse or whatever. that does not fly. we can look at your faces and see who is who and where you come from. so that does not fly. it is really about the issue at hand. you do not agree on certain things. come back and tell us that you have done it. it can be two weeks. it can be four weeks. it is up to you. president olague: we have to vote on this. call the question. commissioner moore: not longer than six weeks. let me give you a date.

the six week date would be october 20. commissioner miguel is out that day. president olague: i think we should call the question. the problem is is that most of the calendared dates are close to the end of november, really. i mean let's go through it. there's nothing available. >> on the question of continuance of this item to six weeks out, six to eight weeks out. commissioner antonini:no. commissioner fong: no. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: no. president olague: no. >> that motion fails.

the motion on the floor for a conditional use with amendments -- president olague: i have some things i want to discuss. i am not sure -- i am not convinced that in six weeks we will be in a more advanced place and we are at this time. i might add a couple of conditions and then request that -- i do not know if there will be an appeal or not, but i do want to request that the project sponsor meet with the buddhist center in good faith and try to come to more agreeable solutions. i am just not sure how long that is going to be. eight weeks, 12 weeks?

i am not sure. it seems to me like this is something that really has to be worked out and continued to have some kind of conversations. we are definitely going to have our conditions here. but i am going to go through and ask for a few more of them. supervisor camos, i am sure-- campos, i am sure, would convene a meeting. i would request to talk to him about convening something that would be the main opposition we were her -- we heard from today, to continue to make sure there is some accountability as it relates to the conditions we have already imposed, which i think are pretty solid. i am going to ask that they

agree to read the conditions. i am kind of concerned about the sro and the privacy. it seems like there might be a little -- it is not clear to me on some level how the open space is being enforced. that is something i would like to see. that is something i really do want to see enforced. also, we know that alcohol is going to be dispensed on the roof but that the bar is no longer open, right? >> that is correct. to your point, you have my word and our word as project sponsors that we will meet with the parties you have identified and will reach out to supervisor campos to see if he or his staff might play the role of convener.

president olague: there is a question about enforcement. the mission into displacement commission had a letter they shared today. i want to make sure they are involved in this thing. it would be those parties, really. >> we are happy. we want to do this peacefully and cooperatively. president olague: one of the communications is a project shall appoint a community liaison officer. that is part of the standard conditions. that is already in there. this i am not sure about, that neighbors have evening cell phone access to a contact person. is that something the project sponsor would be agreeable to? so neighbors have phone access to the contact person who is

able to respond to noise complaints at all times the roof deck is an operation. >> we will even provide an alternate number. president olague: the other -- the posting of the conditions -- a sign security staff to maintain quiet and order. maybe that is something -- >> we do that already. there is very tight security. >> another is that i think is reasonable -- visibly post siphonage requesting patrons to be considerate of noise impacts on neighboring residences and how the rooftop restaurant is a neighbor. i think some of these are pretty reasonable that the neighbors are requesting. some are already included in the conditions. the sound and some of the other things, we will hear more about. the layout -- will see the plan

there. the mandatory hearing we will have, and a hearing every two years. we will see. maybe in six months. we will look at that again. the hours -- we will go with what they have. maximum occupancy 175 as opposed to 300. there are a few we obviously did not include in our motion, but i think that is a good start. i think we are not going to go anywhere if there is no trust. it seems there is a lack of trust coming from the people here the were in opposition. if there is a way we could improve that, i can't that would be good. my concern in part is that right now i think there is a huge

unemployment rate, and economic diversity in the city is something we want to try to preserve. there is a large number of youth, i think as high as 33% of san francisco young people are unemployed. 45% of working age adults are unemployed. that is the lowest rate in 60 years. i think employment is a critical issue right now for the community. when people talk about violence and youth, sometimes if you cannot employed it will lead to them resorting to other activities, but i think the employment piece is critical. i was the one coming years ago, one of the people who observed the illegal use of the medjool. i would like to see it work on some level. we will see. we have faith that there is a

way of making it work. so i'm going to support the motion. commissioner sugaya: i just want to help commissioners understand the closing times are just for patrons. the workers are going to be there forever. vice president miguel: isn't there a one hour restriction on that? i'm sorry. i do not have it in front of me right now. >> let me double check. i do believe i put in the condition that the workers would have to leave by one hour after the closing. vice president miguel: that is normal. maybe i missed it if it was not in there. >> on condition 12, hours of operation, second paragraph states no patrons may remain in the outdoor activity area after closing time.

staff may remain in the facility as necessary for cleaning and other duties related to the operation of the area one hour past the closing our stated above. non-remain in the outdoor area of the cleanup time. president olague: i guess we do need to discuss the rooftop deck issue that has come up. >> i think part of the dilemma is that the code is not well written. it does make sense to address the president issue, which is a concern. you could ask us to look at that issue with better language to address this in the future. president olague: we are asking you to do that. >> commissioners, there is a

motion on the floor for approval with conditions that the department has recommended, plus lowering the occupancy for the outdoor use to 175 persons, and they come back for a six month review, that the project sponsor will continue to work with staff and neighbors on sound problems -- president olague: and enforcement of all the conditions. >> the project sponsor will meet with the buddhist center and the other patrons or people who are in opposition to the project that have stated they designate

an evening cell phone access for the neighborhood, that they visibly posts linage to inform the -- visibly post signs to inform patrons to be quiet. the department will come back as soon as they are ready to approve a permit and give you information. that is what i have. commissioner sugaya: to clarify what i wanted to hear back from the department -- it would be additional consideration for sound based on the wilson report. also that specifically staff look at sro open space requirement and the necessity for additional screening and

protection for the residents. vice president miguel: 50% of the employees are from the community. i think that is something positive about what they are doing. i do not just want to be negative or critical in my tone. >> the motion as we have stated with those conditions is before you. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. we're taking a 10-minute recess.

>> a request for discretionary review. >> good afternoon. this is an abbreviated discretionary review request. it is a three story proposal for a rare extension. it will be a rear addition to an existing -- can you hear? i am sorry.

the proposal is to construct a three story horizontal rear extension and a one story vertical extension. it will be an extension to an existing first floor and basement level, creating a new basement under the extension. the rear extension will be set back 5 feet from the east property line. the vertical extension will create a new third story that will be set back 15 feet from the front building wall and 9 feet from the rear building wall. the will be a steep down slope and a lateral up slope from the west to east. it contains a two-story over basement single-family building. the property is in the nunnelee valley -- noe valley area. the majority of parcels measure 114 feet by 25 feet and buildings range