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 in 2005-2009. there is nothing in the staff report. i appreciate the effort of the staff, being willing to meet with us.

the use standard outdoor ground floor activities. this is not a standard ground floor activity. it is fifth floor in the larger neighborhood context i have showed you. the door is wide open for this picture of increasing sound from now. from here to infinity, here we go. residents are already using earplugs and cannot sleep with windows open during warm weather, the peak season in restaurants for outdoor use. when the burden is on, having the residents in force puts a burden on neighbors to volunteer.

this does not protect the community. short of denying this, what can we live with? and for all the arguments we have told you, we do not think a cu is legal, desirable, or compatible. we have gone through an exercise, 18 conditions we would like to be the starting point. the president is exhibit o -- precedent is exhibit o. if we have to be there, we have to work with mr. murad, but we think you should uphold your own policies and the eastern neighborhood plan. >> the last 19 seconds -- this is his property as well. the new mission theater. he is planning on having a large

nightclub there. it is not as though he is deprived of everything. he has a restaurant here and a big nightclub there. >> if people want to stand up to show their support or have their two minutes. -- president olague: >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am one of the merchants and a resident of the mission district since 1963. i know that area pretty well. i know the parking lot that used to be in the back of their behind the mission. we shop on mission street

between 22nd and 23rd. i have seen the changes over the years, what has been there and what got destroyed with the construction. it is finally coming back. it is important to keep that in perspective over the future. mission street is a commercial corridor. it rivaled market street for a lot of years. there is more that will be coming down in the future and things have to be more final to have the larger businesses work. i am in full support of medjool. i think it will bring a lot more income to the neighborhood and the city. i think it is important to support these types of businesses in san francisco. there are a lot of -- not a lot

of businesses that work with nonprofits in the area. it is important for us to encourage more and to work something out between the businesses and residents. it is time for this to move forward. >> good evening, commissioners. i have not been here for a long time. i forgot how to speak. but bear with me. i am here and supporting medjool because it is a great access to our community. i am a longtime resident and worked in the mission my entire life. i think it is good for us to have big business in our

community, and especially on mission street. this is helpful to our community, the nonprofit, and other people. he has let us have fund-raisers in his place and does not charge us anything. tell us where in san francisco you can go get a fund-raiser and not have to pay any money. he has been very helpful to the residence. he has one of the largest businesses to my knowledge on mission street. i think the mission needs good business. he is a very good business person. i support him 100%. i am happy and pleased if you were to approve the permit. thank you very much.

>> i am a 20 year resident of san francisco. i commend you on commiting your time and energy to this important commission, designed to enhance the san francisco i love. there are serious and complex issues. this mission is -- this business is lazy, careless, and devious. they served mediterranean dishes in an evocative setting. they of our community minded. they are not such problems. there are undesirable developments in san francisco. the rooftop deck of medjool is

not an issue. you have done your due diligence as the planning commission. let this be an example of a small businessman hoping to enhance san francisco, eager to respond to neighborhood concerns. he goes above and beyond requirements, installing sound barriers, monitoring music, reducing square footage, trimming service, and adjusting his own vision. the planning commission finally and enthusiastically approved his the the application. put this aside. grant the application and move on to more pressing matters. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am usually here speaking about traffic safety issues on behalf of the san francisco bicycle coalition. and today, i am here as a neighbor. i am happy to be speaking for the vitality, livability, and diversity of the mission. i am proud to have lived in the mission for 15 years. i am a recent never on bartlett street. my house backs up to medjool. we're the closest neighbor. i love the mission because it is vibrant and perverse. i love that i live next to people of all ages, shapes, and sizes. i love that i can live without a car. i can buy it and take transit. i love the cultural opportunities.

i love the businesses. i love the restaurants and bars. my partner and i moved from the permission into this corridor because we wanted more social life, and we eat out all the time and stay out life. what i do not like is what has been done to some of our neighbors on the street. it has driven away some of my neighbors in the building. there has been disrespectful and illegal activity, noise coming from the rooftop deck. even with the sound barrier that was added, i hear noise at night of music, of voices, of dishes, of a huge fan that goes 24/7 -- i am not sure why.

i am one of the people that sleeps with earplugs and windows closed. even though it is really warm. i am asking you to deny this and work with the neighbors. >> there is a problem with the bell. it is hard to hear. >> i am sorry. thank you for your time on this. >> my name is paul wermer. although i am not a new neighbor of -- near neighbor, i am concerned about two issues. one is the noise. the noise ordinance specifically regulates -- it does not look at individuals dining and talking. that can get loud. we have a weakness in the way noises considered.

i am -- noise is considered. i am more concerned about a major revision of the planning code and planning code intent by permitting commercial uses on rooftops. if we are setting the rooftop is not a story, that opens opportunities for rooftop businesses in all sorts of businesses -- sorts of districts. there are lots of ways to game the system on this. it may well be that rooftop activity is appropriate. if that is the case, it really should be accompanied by some careful assessments of what the codes should be, what the controls should be, and what are or are not appropriate accessory uses. the idea that a business can move up in the building as