smoke, gas using this to remove the greece and smoke and using carbon absorption. in this project, the exhaust is directed to the front of the building, opposite the rear patio. the entire area is contained within the roof structure. it is a tried and true technology. we will eliminate smoke, grease, and odor from the ap plication. thank you. >> i am mechanical engineer. the noise will be mitigated in this project. for a typical restaurant, two

pieces of equipment need to be there. the heating exhaust and the heating and cooling equipment. most of this is in the attic space. the sound will be mitigated that way. the heat pump will be on the roof. that is very quiet. it is located at the far corner towards the street. i do not believe there will be a concern there. the exhaust will be directed towards mission street. any odors will be directed towards mission street. the wind comes from the southwest. this is towards mission street, not towards the bartlett street residences. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am licensed engineer in the

state of california. we were requested by the project of the sponsor to a -- sponsor of the project to do a noise study. you have a report, so i do not want to go over too much of what you already have. we have reviewed the commentary report that he made as a response to our study. one thing that wanted to clarify was the idea of using the who guidelines that it to eliminate noise impact. one thing is that this is never done in san francisco. every time we have been tasked to see it if a project has a noise impact, we are working on

another restaurant right now where we are working closely with the department of public health. i understand that it does not specifically addressed noises. it is a baseline comparison. it allows for a project to create up to eight decibels above the ambient places. this project would create between 8-2 decibels on the other side of the fence. lower than that as you move away. i am happy to answer any questions you may have later about the study. >> any additional public comment? >> as people have told you in

their comments, this is the restaurant patio. this is the interior of the restaurant. this is the space inside for eating. pollo campero made a specific decision that they would be an outside restaurant. there are larger spaces available. they could have a restaurant with all of the seating inside in several places. they have look for them. they started with the space that was inappropriate. they are trying to fit a size 10 foot into a size 4 shoe. there are people on the other side of it. this is the report. this is what they say as acceptable. look at the areas here. this is the last page of the

report. data processing center. that is the level of noise. you have for the past four or five years at least the noise standards on all kinds of plants. the supervisor's legislation that regulates noise near freeways. you have had all of your input for the past 10 years from the department of public health. there are mechanical noise standards in the police code that are the wrong standards. they are to mitigate the noise of equipment on a site. it is ok to go to vacuum cleaner level noise on the site when there are people that have their yards here. you need to listen to the city. no patio. they do not care. pollo campero is coming to the

city. this is the wrong space. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the neighborhood association. our association is composed of nonprofit residence in the area. we have met with folks from pollo campero and we have voted in support of it coming to mission street. they are not just forming a retail company. they are not like mcdonald's or popeyes on mission street. one of the things that is different is the local jobs they are going to create. they are going to provide training and management that a lot of small businesses are not able to provide. they came here, not with a model to put into the

neighborhood, but the idea was to get the model from the neighborhood. we have talked about healthy menu options. we are concerned about the types of foods being consumed in the neighborhood. they are going to work with local youth from city college. they are going to provide the employees with very good benefits compared to a lot of other businesses in the neighborhood. this is the kind of business we do want in the neighborhood. this is not a fast-food restaurant. it is going to be more like a full-service restaurant. we need to help the local economy. i do understand neighbor's concern. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. vice-president miguel: to me, this is a little bit difficult. there are several questions

involved. i would like to ask the architect, how are you handling your garbage? >> commissioners, the rear patio was not only house the refrigeration instrument but we set aside for storage. also, this is something that restaurant ownership passed to

manage. this is from the patio. they will bring the dishes inside and put them into the dishwasher. eventually, we will have to move that garbage bin to the front street. we will use rubber wheels on that. >> thank you. the conditions of approval seem to me to differ from other conditions of approval,

particularly where there is patio seating involved. they do not reference hours of operation. >> that is correct. the department would be willing to add suitable hours of operation controls. it could be from 10:00 until 10:00 or whenever the commission feels is necessary. >> this is the situation of a very major neighborhood commercial district. i appreciate the concerns of the neighbors on bartlett street. they reside and bought projects and housing that backs into a major commercial district. one has to assume that there will be permitted commercial

uses. that would include the entire lot. that is standard. commercial uses are not limited to a portion of the lot. i am not going to gointo healthy food, fast food, and all of that. i wonder if we would consider this differently if it was a k fc. the websites says 340 restaurants worldwide. you might start to make that comparison. as far as the hiring comments, training comments, that is something that this commission and planning department has no ability to enforce. it does not go into our conditions of approval. we have to literally disregard

that. that is not up to was whatsoever. i asked about a garbage because i presume that is how it is being handled. i would like to hear from our other commissioners. i myself would not vote for this if the conditions of approval showed any action other than the removal of garbage in the patio past 8:00 in the evening. that does not mean starting seating at 8:00. that means anything other than the removal of garbage after 8:00. that would be the most i would give. >> commissioner antony. -- antonini. commissioner antonini: i think this promises to be a benefit and something desirable to the

neighborhood in doubt it activates a vacant storefront. they are not to serve any alcohol. they will deploy -- employs 70 people and restore the store front. they have done adequate about reached. many groups have come up and spoken about the art reached. they have made it clear what the restaurant is and what their menu will consist of. what is of concern is the neighbors issues on the rear apartment street. i was encouraged to see how many neighbors have come out and are making it their own and are raising their children. i actually visited the site and i was able to go into the patio. a couple of thing struck me. somebody talked about line of sight. only if you are 20 feet tall are you going to have a line of site.

i think it is about 5 feet below grade now and then there is a six-foot fence. they have to put a ladder there and climb to the top of the latter. then i could just peer over the top. they intend to put the fence up any higher. i do not think we will have a line of sight issue or a security issue unless somebody pull faults -- pole vaults into the yards. what does concern me is the noise. i have heard from the noise rep. i look at his report carefully -- looked and his report carefully. his report says that the noise level would be that of conversation. the highest level would be 54

decibels, according to his report, which is the sound in the adjacent backyards. the sound of the house would be in the 20's and the 30's. this was his report. there was another report done by another consultant. it is hard to really know what the truth of the matter is going to be. i think they are putting in a lot of muffling material around there. i think they're running expected sounds. i would be in favor of having some sort of condition where it came back to us in six months or a year and we had somebody from the city, out and monitor and let's really find out what the noise levels are and what they are reported to be. the same would be true of of whether they are successful in capturing those that come out of there.

i do agree with commissioner miguel. when you move into a street light bartlett and you have a beautiful backyard, you are enjoying the neighborhood commercial area, much like what on chestnut street or on union or on 24th street, you have many restaurants that have backdoor dining areas and patio's. this is a very common thing. it was expected that this would probably happened in this area, too. i fully support some sort of monitoring of this test to see a bank it was disruptive. if it work, the commission could decide whether further mitigation would be necessary, whether that be enclosure or further sound vacation. it would have to be somebody from the city to do it. it is one used that i could support. i certainly support the

neighbor's concerns. >> as commissioner miguel said, we shouldn't enter into this discussion. should the project sponsor rep -- is your organization, the restaurant organization vertically integrated? by that i mean, some other people have testified that you guys not only run restaurants, but you also raise chickens and grow products. >> we do not. >> can you tell me where you are going to buy your chickens? >> the chicken is being bought through tysons. it is bought in the u.s. we do not bring chicken from

guatemala or anything of that sort. they will be sourced locally. >> with respect to lighting on the patio, you have the shown on the drawings. i am assuming that those are all down let. nothing is going to go up vertically. >> as a condition of approval, i submit that all of the lighting will be soft lighting, in downe lighting. >> thank you. commissioner miguel, is it my understanding from your question that the trash is being stored in the utility area? they would have to take it out

to the front. vice-president miguel: they would have to take it out. commissioner"l sugaya: my own position is that i think it is the wrong use in the wrong place. maybe it is the right use, but it is in the wrong place. it seems to me that other patio situations that are recall do not have quite the amount of back yards on both sides of the property. the area is basically surrounded by backyards on three sides. it just seems like, despite the battling between two sound experts, i do not believe you can muffle the noise to the extent that people say it is going to be. i would not live there if there

was a patio there. to say that people should realize when they bought the property, they should have realized they were next to commercial areas, i think they did realize they were next to commercial buildings. several people have said that. what they did not expect was that there would be an increased amount of activity, especially restaurant activity in the open space in the rear of this building and the adjacent building. i do not oppose the use in terms of it being in the building. it seems to me strange that the whole premise behind the building is that 50% or more of the seating is out in the back. i just sympathize with the

neighbors on this one, i guess. >> commissioner moore. >> on the same note, i am concerned that we are talking about a residential area between two different land uses. we have a school and commercial use, which creates for residential, a difficult situation. we usually have residential against residential. the fact that this particular area has an open space i think creates a problem of separation between the commercial use. typically, what you have on mission street is not backyard patios. you have businesses that operate inside with the yard areas and simple buildings away from the residential to create a buffer between the massiveness of the

commercial buildings as a transition between the backyard and the residential. it is almost like a change in land use. there are no other restaurants that does use outdoor open space on the commercial property. well i am very much in support for the restaurant to be in this area, this might not be exactly the right property. i wonder about the business model. i do not have an mba. i find it unusual to open a restaurant in san francisco with 40 outdoor seating and 20-seat indoor seating given that our weather come up for turley this winter, has been such that you cannot even sit outside. it is too cold, it is too windy, and it rains. i do not think that this part of

mission street is sunny. i cannot use that as an argument to disapprove. i do believe that it's somehow forces this our port area to have most of it patrons being outside. 40 people outside in a very small space to at least create ambient noise which is always present. i do believe that that is somewhat interfering with residential use, particularly the bedrooms and private use on bartlett. on their front doors, they already have enough to contend with with the ever-present ambien to noise of the school. i find the outdoor use to the degree of intensity questionable.

i also find the hours of operation to long. they are far too long periods -- too long. they are far too long. perhaps a site might be better than this. >> commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i would like to talk to the project sponsor about looking for spaces in the mission and what is wrong with those bases and if somebody could speak to that issue. -- those spaces and if somebody could speak to that issue. >> i work with pllo campero in the area of development. we have been looking in the

mission district for 10 years for the right property. things go in and out and they go along quickly. we have looked at this property for almost a year. we needed a sizable amount of space to do our business. there was not anything in the mission that gave us the exposure. we liked the fact that the patio, i personally have lived in san francisco for 12 years. we loved the outdoor dining. we thought that would provide a nice complement to what we do. we are all about families enjoying themselves. we saw this being an ideal spot for us within the mission district. >> out of curiosity, and do your other locations have a large amount of the outdoor seating? >> some of them have fairly large outside patios.

we are a sub-franchisee. we have at 13 locations in los angeles. we are a franchisee. we are located in the neighborhoods in los angeles. the issues are a little bit different in terms of the youth there. los angeles is not a pedestrian community. we have more drive through in los angeles. that is the business in l.a. where we do have patios, they are used quite often. we wanted to be part of the mission district. we wanted to make this very specific to the san francisco environment. we felt this would be a beautiful way to be part of the community. i have heard a lot of people talk about the beauty of the

outdoors. they like to experience this with family. this is a family restaurant. we are not meant to serve beer and wine. we manage noise levels. we make sure that people keep down the noise. we will make sure that this is a great spot for us. we contribute and not to the economy. we really like the community. >> what about the discussion of enclosing the patio? >> the problem with enclosing the patio that it is an extremely expensive proposition. it would probably prohibit us off from having any kind of a return if we had to have that kind of investment. it totally in closing the patio out of our reach. >> i do not really know the technology. our neighborhood has some sort of retractable roof that shots and off. >> we had talked about doing some sort of this.

to them, that was not acceptable. they did not see any acceptable use of the patio of us it was totally enclosed. that creates other code issues. >> what about providing more of a buffer space? using only half of the patio for the restaurant and leaving the other half open. >> that will probably limit the amount of business we could do. that would probably be detrimental. san francisco is not the cheapest place to do business. the cost of labor and what not is so much more expensive for a lower margin type of restaurant. we do not make a lot of margin on our product. for us to be able to do things and support the people, we need to have a decent amount of seating that we can provide. >> thanks for the questions that you have answered.

you can sit down. >> for me, this is a tough one as well. there seems to be support. there seems to be a willingness to work with the neighborhood and provide jobs. 175 people have signed on for jobs. there is the issue of compatibility with the adjacent neighbors. what are you -- you are hearing is not the idea to happen -- not have a go in the mission. the idea is, is this the right location? there are a number of issues brought up by people in the neighborhood that i wish you would work out if you have additional people in the neighborhood. our issue is, is it necessary or desirable for the threshold of conditional use? i think we said that there are some