desirability factors. there are also some undesirable factors as well. from that threshold, it is really hard, as the restaurant is currently proposed, to support it, not because we do not support the concept, but because from the point of view of the code, there are challenges. there are 20 vacancies on mission street. i cannot imagine there would not be another space that would suit the company's needs. and you are in negotiations with the people you are in negotiations with, but at this time my by seems to be it would make a lot more sense to find another space that might be more compatible that you could either have more interceding -- indoor seating or back patio seating that is more compatible with the neighborhood. if there was some way to enclose the hypatia space, reduce the hypatia space, or cut back the hours, that would be something i would consider, but i do not

know what other commissioners are thinking. commissioner moore: i think my concerns with the project -- vice president miguel: -- president olague: i think my concerns to the project are promises made to the community about employee -- employment and things. it is nice to have the community benefits agreement in place that was may be negotiated through the supervisor's office, or something along those lines. there is an organization i have worked with in the past that i fully respect. the of mostly from central america, most of the members. they do have a lot of concerns around -- obviously, the women who spoke spoke a lot about health issues and the type of menu. i was glad to hear that you agreed to remove the burritos item from the thing, because that definitely would cut into some of the other locally-owned

smaller businesses that are there in the mission. so i am a little bit, i guess, disappointed that that sort of an agreement is not in place. i know there are verbal assurances, but that is never as, what is the word, as solid as if we had some actual community benefits practice the was drafted and agreed upon by all parties. that being said, actually, i think that looking at the plan, mr. sanchez, if you could come up -- isn't there quite a lot of space still between the patio and the neighbor's backyard areas, i think? is there? can you show us?

just to kind of -- because i think it looks like that might be what becomes the point of discussion here ultimately. >> i believe this area here -- that area is actually being used right now by the owners of this property. >> right. >> but it looks like the use is going to be all in here, the patio use. >> it is pretty close. >> i think part of the issue i have is that, again, mission street is a neighborhood commercial district, you know? it is an area that is a vital commercial district in san francisco. and i would not want to put a lot of prohibitions on and start a precedent where we are prohibiting what business can do along a neighborhood commercial corridor. i think we have two dangerous

precedents we are looking at here. you have union street. you have filmore st.. you have all these but the commercial corridors, the visitor wrote. we want to be able to kind of encouraged fatality along these corridors, and although there are neighbors that are going to be affected that are adjacent, i think we do need to take that into consideration, and maybe even the six months or whatever, we can come back. we have done that in the castro because we have had similar concerns raised by neighbors there. i also do not want to kind of tie the hands of businesses that want to go into these areas. so that is where i think we have to look at some of that. it is a huge corporation that is international. i am sometimes deluding myself along those lines.

but say it is a small business that is locally owned. i think we really need to be careful about how we balance these different competing interests in the city. i don't know. i think i would be interested to see what some of the -- what motion is ultimately made about considering this. i am not definitely opposed to it. the groups that spoke first or groups a worked with for years. i hope there is still the possibility of continuing in some of those conversations. i know you might have met with the executive director. it looks like that was not all communicated to other members of that stuff. we still have supervisor campos

as supervisor in district 9. hopefully, a lot of these areas that we have no purview over can still be discussed and solidified. that being said, the commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i want to ask the project sponsor or whoever wants to speak for the project -- i just have a question. about the capacity of the patio. well, i know the capacity is 40. but what i am asking is would it be viable to cut that number down some to make it, say, 30, and put more sitting on the inside, which might mitigate some of the noise? the think that would work in your business model? >> i do not know if we have more

room indoors to put more seating. we are counting on the 40 spaces outside to be able to make it viable business model. if that is what is going to tip the scales one way or the other, and you are saying cut it down from 4235 and that is what is going to make the difference, we will consider it. but obviously, that is enormous financial impact. commissioner antonini: i have a thought. i am going to try to make a motion here come up with the idea being i hear what commissioner miguel is saying about the hours of operation. i think that helps the neighbors a little bit to cut down the hours of operation to some degree, closing earlier in the evening. i would be making a motion that

the hours of operation be 10:00 to 8:00 and we would come back in six months. in the patio, that is true. patio operation 10:00 to 8:00. restaurant 10:00 to 10:00. i do not know there is much opposition to opening later, but i believe the proposed hours of operation were 10:00 to 10:00. a six months look back where we get a report back from the planning staff about how things are going, how the sound situation has been. we would get this report and decide whether or not it was appropriate to have further measures or another hearing about any kind of modifications that may be needed. but right now with the motion would contain is what you would be entitled for. we have already talked about no

alcohol. maybe try to shoot for 35-seat maximum on the patio and make up the difference on the inside. here is the motion. hours of operation 10:00 to 8:00. in six months, look back and see how things are going. 35 seats on the outdoors. indoors is unlimited, whatever you can work feasible in there. it is not the biggest space in the world, but you might be able to get a couple more in there from what i can tell. president olague: second. vice president miguel: i am thinking of a very similar situation on clement street, where there is a restaurant that has been there for 30 years that has an outdoor patio that faces presidential that keeps refrigeration and storage in the back. but it is an excess reuse. it is not major use.

the problem i have with this motion is we come back in six months and what are we going to tell them to do? stop serving from the patio? they cannot make any money. to me, the motion does not hold water. if this was an accessory use, i might go for it. but this is the main financial thrust of the restaurant, is the patio. i have to agree with some of the things commissioner borden was saying. do you know offhand that there are no other locations in the mission? this is a franchise fast food restaurant before us as conditional use. is it necessary? is it desirable? i do not believe in this

location that it qualifies as necessary. i think the possible qualifications on desirable, as to its configuration and its location, are so tenuous that i do not think i can vote for it. commissioner moore: i want to take up the idea that this restaurant would make this part of mission street a vibrant spirit. it would make the backyard very vibrant, but it would contribute very little to what happens in the front. what about a scheme where the patio is to the front of the space? we do not have a two-story situation here. but the thrust of the people in front -- that is where they come and go. you see people sitting and laughing and doing. that would be a nice advertising for the store and add to the vibrancy that commissioner

olague is referring to. it does not happen in the backyard. to the impact of the residences. my response as a professional is to listen to the impact on the larger number of people versus the single benefit of a business trying to cash in on the ambiance of residential backyards and be the only one on the block to have a restaurant out there. i think that is predatory. that is a very negative word. i love the restaurant. but let us shift the activity to the seat -- to the street, where people can see it. that is something i could except and figure out how the numbers work, in terms of numbers of people. i am not prepared to let this happen in the backyard.

commissioner antonini: in six months, it would come back to us and the commission would have the ability to impose additional uses or conditions on them, if that were the case. if, for example, we decided things were not working well and we needed a sound study and found the sound study was negative, possibly the patio could be asked to be in close. that might be something we could do. as far as commissioner moore's idea of having the sitting in the front, you could put a couple of tables out there. you do not have a lot of space on the sidewalk. the sponsor could move some of the sitting to the front part of the restaurant, but because of the construction of the space you are not good to get a lot of people in the front. it is relatively narrow. i think it is a 25-foot

frontage. i am not sure what it is. it is somewhat limited how many people you would get in front of this restaurant. i think those are the answers. i would hope that we can see how this thing works, because i think it has a lot of potential. the protection for the neighbors -- in six months, we look and see how things are working out. vice president miguel: i do not think he thoroughly understood me. i have been in the retail business. you do not sign a lease which is, believe me, going to be more than six months on the belief you will lose a major portion of your income, possibly, at that point. you just do not do it. it would be absolutely ridiculous to put yourself under the control of the decision by this commission at a six month.

-- at a six month point. president olague: i don't think the motion is really like motions we have made in the castro and other vibrant residential corridors. i think a six month review. is something we have asked of other -- i think a six month review is something we have asked of other sponsors in the past. 90% of the time, we found most project sponsors have worked cooperatively with the neighborhood and things have worked out positively. i think we are placing certain reasonable restrictions on it. as commissioner miguel suggested earlier, we are actually limiting the time of the patio in the back to 8:00 p.m. before, it would have been

allowed until 10. we are allowing the business to stay open until 10 and asking the maybe maximize the sitting in the front part of it. i think we are sort of listening to some of the suggestions of commissioners up here and limiting it at 8:00 p.m.. i believe we were even limiting the capacity on the outside patio to 35, which is something that also brings it back. i know you had something to add. >> if i may, you did on 777 valencia place a six month monitoring condition on that, a conditional use. that was a similar restaurant use with an outdoor activity. . there were residences in the back. there was a condition on the hours of operation as well. president olague: commissioner

moore? project sponsor? >> there was a restriction of 10:00 to a decline during the week, so we could extend it to 10:00 on friday and saturday night? people tend to stay out later. president olague: we will discuss it up here. what i am hearing from other commissioners is that that is not something you -- they would accept. i am assuming you would not go over. when you're up here, you hear the whispering. commissioner borden: i had to use the bathroom. can somebody tell me what the motion is? vice president miguel: the motion is for approval of the project with the hours of operation indoors to be 10:00 to 10:00, the patio 10:00 to 8:00. patio seating limited to 35. we have a six month look back when the project is brought back to us for staff to report on how

the sound in addition has been, how the odor mitigation has been, if things are working ok. the commission would decide whether or not any further action might be necessary at that time as far as enclosure of the patio or other possible options. president olague: i would like to add that may be at that time we could consider how things are going to allow them to stay open on friday and saturday until 10:00. commissioner antonini: that often happens. we look at things and see how they have been working. president olague: it could be we liberalize it on the weekends. commissioner borden: that is with the soundproofing medications? commissioner antonini: right. that was a condition in the original motion, the draft. and how the cover for the odor.

commissioner fong: just very quickly, mr. sanchez, are there any installed on mission street? >> i am unaware of any markets on mission street. the closest i am aware of is between mission and valencia. i believe it is 22nd, the october revolution cafe. commissioner fong: i am following up on the idea of bringing some of the energy to the front of the space with a park. there might be an opportunity for the solution to pick up the five or 10 seats you may lose in the backyard and bring it up front. president olague: is that something that is doable? commissioner antonini: you could not require it because the city would have to approve that, but you could require them make

applications for a parklet. i would consider that part of the motion. that could work. >> if i may, i think it is important that the condition on the monitoring read something to the effect that the commission could impose additional conditions in the future, or modify your conditions of approval if the conditions warrant it. commissioner borden: that is a question i wanted to ask and did not ask. maybe we should be a little more explicit. my only other concern then is how do deal with the reality

that people in the neighborhood are going to be -- hopefully, everybody would be honest and say if they were a nuisance or were not a nuisance. that is, i guess the only concern i have is how do we make sure we measure that. >> monitoring at intervals -- i think the planning department could impose monitoring fees so we could actually do this. with respect to your question, you do raise an interesting point. potentially, the study could take actual data points at various times during the week over an extended time or something to that effect to know what is really happening. just an idea. commissioner borden: say that again. >> to determine whether the noise is being attenuated or not, a sound engineer could come out and take actual readings.

i am not an expert. i would want to allow someone who actually practices his craft to let us know. commissioner borden: that would make sense. i would want there to be real reading so we would have real information on it, so there is some sort of level of real stability. obviously, if i do not want this thing in my neighborhood and it comes in, i am going to be a nuisance and col. maybe i want. >> on the valencia's street project, that is how it was crafted, to have a sound study done as part of the monitoring. we include that. commissioner borden: i think it is to the patio will not be that often occupied by 35 seats. i mean, that is a challenge. if there are 35 people sitting there, i am sure it is very noisy. but the way people flow in and out of restaurants, whether it would be packed like that i do not know.

i think these conditions get to addressing the circumstance. i am willing to give it a try, knowing that it is a try and you have a lot of work to do with your neighbors on this. but i really wish that you would consider maybe a retractable roof or something. i know some other places like swat and gobble have successfully done them to work with the sound issues. but i have to tender also that people lived next door in a neighborhood commercial corridor. when you live right next to a mcd, there is a certain level of noise and things to sign up for. unfortunately, that is just a reality. you get the benefits of being able to walk outside your door and have restaurants and shops. what comes with that is trash pickup at 6:00 in the morning and many other negative things. i am willing to support this, but say to the project sponsor that i really want you to be

good neighbors. appoint a community liaison and make sure the immediate neighbors have the cell phone number of that person that can be addressed, and really follow through with what we are asking you to do here. commissioner sugaya: i am not going to support the motion. it is interesting to me that when one of the project sponsors spoke and mentioned at all of the groups he was working with and had contacted, he did not mention any of the neighborhood people living on bartlett. i do not know if that was a mistake or what. in other instances, especially on drs, we have encouraged people to try to work things out. therefore, i think, given commissioner olague's concerns with things not being worked out -- we have not heard from

supervisor campos at this point. the concerns of the speakers with try to work with the project sponsor -- i am going to make a motion to continue. commissioner sugaya: -- commissioner moore: second. >> we do have a motion to continue on the table. that will take precedent. so we will vote first. vice president miguel: we need a date. president olague: the first available is -- vice president miguel: in may. president olague: 19. >> that would be a continuance to may 19? commissioner antonini: during that -- commissioner sugaya: during that time, my intent is for the product sponsor to work with the adjacent neighbors that have not been contacted, and also with supervisor campos's

office. >> the motion to continue to make 19 -- commissioner antonini: no. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: no. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president olague: no. vice president miguel: aye. >> we have four boats for a continuance. it will be continued to may 19. vice president miguel: -- commissioner borden:--president olague: we will be closed. >> public hearing will be closed at that time. if we could ask that people step out, we are going to move on to

item 12. this is for 2774 filbert st.. it is a request for discretionary review of the building permit. president olague: i don't know if staff is here for the next item. ok, great. we are ready. >> good evening, commissioners. i am david lindsay from department staff. the project before you is a vertical addition filbert st.

and how hollow. discretionary review has been requested by the owner of the adjacent property to the west. staff has prepared an abbreviated analysis based on the department's conclusion that the project does not contain or create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. the existing building is a three story 2 below-unit building. the proposal is to add a partial fourth story set back approximately 8 feet from the existing front wall of the building and approximately 19 feet from the existing rear wall of the building. the first 8 feet a proposed to be a foot lower in height then the remainder of the fourth floor. this is to minimize the addition's visibility from the street. the partial fourth story would extend to the west of the property line, where it would abut the fourth story on the adjacent building, which is owned by the dr requestor. it would match an existing light

well on the dr requestor's wall. the proposed fourth story would be set back approximately 4 feet for the entire length of the eastern property. ? our proposed on the flat roof surfaces at the front and rear of the fourth floor edition -- addition. in an open staircase along the west property is proposed to connect to the roof of the fourth floor addition, although no deck is proposed on top. the building immediately adjacent to the east is three stories tall. the building immediately to the west is three stories tall, with a partial fourth story, similar to what is being proposed on the subject property. due to the lateral downward slope of filbert st. from east to west, the dr requestor's third floor roof surface is slightly lower than the subject property's. the dr requestoris