at the end of the day, it is 55 feet and that is what we approved here and i think it's too tall and there is another project at 16th and valencia which is way massive and out of kale for what is appropriate for that time of a street and all things sate, this does ultimately conform with what it's being asked to do. but in the future i would like to see more analysis around ultimately who is living in these types of units that we are approving here. i'm going to ask staff to discuss that with staff more. because i don't think we're meeting the needs of working families in san francisco. i just don't.

commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i appreciate that you are raising the question that is as not as much a discussion against the project, but this project raises questions and i like to add to that list of questions that the square feet is extremely small type of unit even for two people and i think mr. morris knows that very well. i live in one. for two adults it is extremely difficult. and you can be as neat and orderly as you are and it is really living in a shoe horn situation. and if we are talking about family housing, we need to raise our own awareness of what it means to live at 1,100 feet with two people and that is not anything which would hinder us from approving this project but is a realistic discussion. and the next thing that i would

like to discuss is that the federal government is not supporting landing on homes anymore which exceed the national average and i see mr. coleman nod and which banks will be lending and lending institutions will support lending on homes and that is not against this project but speaks to the reality of living in san francisco. i am only kind of supporting a more in-depth discussion and helping us clarify that and will address the larger issue of building housing, market rate, as well as affordable housing in san francisco. i would like to continue to discussion and have the department more informed about where this is going. >> commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i am for

this project and i think it's a good project but want to piggyback what would be interesting in the hearing is two things and that would be useful to know and a lot of parts in the u.s. with single-family homes, the average home size is 1600 square feet and we are not talking about huge places and think even though they have a different column, the average house size in the u.s. is not as big as we think unless you go to the megamcmansion areas. we will probably be surprised to know what the square footage is and to see that data from san francisco to the extent that is possible with the average size of a unit in jeaned where that

falls in and you can have a great discussion and there are families who live in hotels and individual who is live in very large places by themselves. there is a gamut and different people find livability different based upon the way they treat space or use space. so i think it's a challenge. and also in that hearing it is helpful to understand how to create incentives for inclusionary housing and if we had some independent analysis and cost per unit of that and useful to know and difficult for developers to subsidize the units and the buildings and the maintenance of the buildings and if we're going to have the conversation, we need to look at

the broad er picture to have al the facts on the table and figure out how we would craft incentives to ep courage people to do on site housing without all that kind of information we are stuck in this conundrum of approving projects that are great projects but not necessarily reaching the people we need them to reach. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i think that is the perennial issue in the city and has been for a long time. this is extremely difficult for any dreveloper to build somethig and fulfill the kind of goals we all want to have fulfilled for middle income housing. and to address it through inclusionary fees and just adds more cost to the housing sand a nevertheless ending circle because we want community

benefit and who do we want to have pay for it? the developer pays for it. he isn't just going to absorb it and it goes into the selling price, right? so with affordable housing, the in lieu fee is put into the cost of the units. and i don't have an answer and am trying to address commissioner olague's conundrum because -- or whatever. and it will be really difficult for the private sector given the way it operates to fulfill that need. and so the city is trying to do other things to try to meet it and it goes around and around. and as far as square footage, 1,100 is going to be a luxury to me. given the size of my condo. but it is a lesson and really how much square footage do you really need compared to japan we're probably luxury, but not japan. it would seem given the kind of

emphasis on green buildings and saving energy that we should look at solar units and surprising to me, i think, and maybe mr. colon cannot say if this is true, but in suburban america, and any way that the square footage of houses is going up or has been going up. which kind of surprises me. it is going -- instead of going in the opposite direction and building bigger houses trying to save on energy. >> and that is going in a different kind of direction than we want the city to go. and lastly on the fha supported is around now going to be around 465,000 or something like that. and i think it was before wasn't it? and they only jumped up to 700 and something during the recession.

so we're actually going back to where we were before. we're not -- >> that was the premium. >> i think it's a bad move but on the other hand we didn't have it before either. >> i agree with a lot of the comments that have been said about the entire conundrum that we're in because if you do increase the square foot amming and i certainly from personal -- the square footage and can say from experience with today's family with at least one child and maybe two, you probably need square footage in the range of 1700 to 2,000 square feet. you can get along with less, but remember, these are units that people are spending a lot of money to buy and as much as they can afford and want to have a place where there is enough room to bring a parent in for babysitting or helping with the children and other issues that has to be xcompetitive.

and and whether that ends up being all families and some families. and the gas station there before. and will add a lot to the economy and provide that because there will be more people in the neighborhood and i think it's a good thing either way. but trying to solve our middle income and upper middle income family problem in san francisco is a difficult one because we're not making anymore land and the land that is here is pretty expensive but there will be solutions and is not one that will address every sipping l -- every single need we have. >> to commissioner sugaya's comment about size, maybe we do need to re-evaluate as culture

how much size we need and maybe we do demand too much, but again, this project follows the rules and two years ago the design has way improved and asking for less parking is not asking for too much and so go to the ground and having spent the past few years as it relates to the mission and to attract some of the condominiums that we have approved here and the quonset hut and i remember it was an art space and multimillion condominiums going for close to $1 million. i don't think that's an exaggeration either.

i think that is the question i have when people jump up and down for joy and with additional family housing. >> if i was a similar couple without children and three bedrooms and the smaller unit and to knock one of the walls out if i could afford it. i know the unit, too. >> i wanted to comment on breaking this down to smaller units and not just retail but really broken it down into what we are concerned about is indeed replicating this and providing smaller square footage and i

appreciate that. president olague: i want to diminish what i said earlier of my critiques of things but want to acknowledge that and this project came a long way from where it was initially and the design improved over where it was. commissioner antonini? ant apt apt commissioner antonini one other xhept on the square footage that i should have mentioned earlier, you have a little bigger square footage with an up to house or multilevel because you have the stairway and i know those don't count but you have to deal with these and so where you might be able to get away with a size on one level in a suburban setting and go with multi-floors you are obliged to have more square feet to make it work and rooms with computers and things and sometimes require a certain amount of separation or privacy. and that wasn't the case before.

president olague: and we have asked staff millions of times before, the in lieu fee and where does that end up? can we get a response otosome point where does this go? we're curious to see how that could get more detail and how much the fee was produced from this and this is how it was sent. and i get that question a lot from members of the public and people don't seem to have an answer. quality the question. secretary avery: just for clarify, commissioners, the motion is for the shadow impact and the motion is for a finding that net new shadow from the project is not adverse. [vote taken]

>> on 14a, i move with conditions and i didn't speak before and the shadow i want to comment that i appreciate what the project sponsor and architect is and i have to assume there was more iteration of the project and showed the evolution and comments that influenced that and that valuable to the and particularly at the lower pace. so both the department and

having that in there and working with the project sponsor and architect and allowing us to see that revolution and there are times when we will see a project that doesn't go through and see it three years later and forget what we saw before. and that puts it into context for us. i appreciate that. avesecretary avery: is there a second? >> second. [vote taken] >> thank you, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously. you are on item 15, 2010.0628c, the 2740 mission street.

>> good afternoon. diego sanchez at 2740 mission street and sought conditional use and doing business as a restaurant identified as formula retail use and with an outdoor activity area not contiguous to the front property. and to allow project sponsor additional time for community outreach. the outreach meeting was may 11 with the project sponsor and the bar let street neighborhood and the community group and supervisor david campos. commissioners, the hearing was continued to today, may 26, and the original proposal has been altered to now enclose the rear patio area and in addition, there's a second egress act at the front.

this eliminates the need for a continuous use. and to receive the grant the conditional use authorization to proceed to allow a full-service restaurant by this formula retail use within the mission street district and initial transit district. staff recommends approval of the project. the proposed project will occupy a vacant store front and create 70 new appointment opportunities in the mission district that will be open to workers of lesser skill sets and will implement eliminating light, sound, and odor. the area will serve a significant community in the mission district and which is an area known as the heart of

latino life in san francisco. the proposed project will meet all compliances of the planning code and that this meets the formu formulas and identified as formula retail use and the proposed project would not add a net informative retail use in the mission street neighborhood commercial drikd and the opportunities for buildings to locate on mission street are still plentiful with many vacant buildings. that concludes our presentation and i am available for question. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor. >> i have been asked by project sponsor to represent them in this matter.

i am not going to recount what you just heard from mr. sanchez and this project has enormous merit and we went over that on march 3. however, we had contention at the time with a number of groups with the open area and the patio space in the back where the neighbors felt that that was inappropriate and there would be a nuisance. subsequent to that, we have met with them per your direction to meet with that group and other affected groups for the continuance and had supervisor david campos at the meeting and was well represented by dr. antonini at the meeting. every single individual from bartlett street that was here march 3 was invited to the meeting and over other one yes knew of and asked diego to

supply the meetings and they were invite and we basically were able to show them something of substance. one of the reasons is the vision had to be createed. the tenants has to get together with the property owner and to see whether it made economic sense to all involved and get the architectural drauings to see what the cost would be and who would share the costs and the decision was made to move forward and given the plans ahead of time and we had the may 11 meeting and executive management is here to address any of the questions and comments you may have.

and it was an ideal opportunity to ask anything they wanted and express any constructive criticism and there was some and as a result of the constructive criticism, the second set of revised drawings came out and they are in your files. they include about six revisions that were made after the may 11 meeting from hearing from the community. and this process has been very neighborly and i have been involved with the quite a few mission neighborhood projects and we have the community liaison officer and will be speaking after i speak to tell you about some 20 organizations he has been reaching out to and will also tell you that the very first stop to supervisor catchos' office. we have addressed what you asked us to do and spoke to the

community to make the patio less of a sue nu sans and to the community groups on menu items and spoke to them about the appearance of our block and also on very pleased to tell you more about hiring and 60 plus jobs that will go into the infrastructure. and a sit-down family restaurant and it is not a takeout operation or you wouldn't hire 60-plus people and spend six-digit figure on putting an enclosure on the back patio. with that said, i'll be here as well if you have any questions. in terms of desirability, immaterialed to resubmit for the record over 1,000 signatures that were changed in less than

seven days on one block on the 2700 block of the mission, 1,000 plus signatures were changed from people who want to have campero on that block. thank you very much. >> we have been meeting with a lot of different community organizations since early sort of mid january on january 19 we met with mr. david campos and this is something we do not just for san francisco but do throughout los angeles when we open up a new restaurant, we meet with the community and try to understand what the needs are so that when and if we can come

out to the community and we met with the general consul for the guatemalan consulate and what better person to speak to and guide us in the right direction to who we would need to speak to. as you can see here, the organizations we spoke to, all 20 of them and the ones highlighted are the ones mr. campos suggested we reach out to who were immediately contacted the following week after the 24th. after meeting with some of the organizations we also met with the city college and we put a contract together to hire students from college and be flexible with the school hours. and we have attended four community meetings in the

mission district area and met with not just community organizations and with merchant associations such as the lower district with the mission language and vocational school and also what i have done as well is gone and spoken to businesses within that area and with the organizations that mr. campos suggested and also reached out far more in the allotted time. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> i am shawn flanagan and i am

speaking as one of several from the bartlett street neighborhood association. since we last met, the covered patio was added to the plans and it is definitely a nuisance, but our neighborhood has major concerns about how the plan will be implemented and the type of neighborhood partner campero will be. since we last met at the hearing, they demonstrated signs they will be a bad neighbor including waiting on days before the hearing to reach out to community groups and supervisor campos' office and the parson street neighborhood association. i was unable to attend because i was out of town. this is a few days ago they held this meeting. they still try to mask itself as something other than formula retail. and essentially we are concerned they will continue to ignore the

community as they have done in the last few months since the last hearing and we request you not approve the application and if the commission approves the application, we request you document and require the following conditions and i would like to pass these forward. we ask neighbors receive a minimum 30-day review period detailing building plans prior to any department approval of the plans. those plans include exterior elevations and mechanical system and governing noise, odor, and light. we ask no modifications or expansion to the plans will allowed including conditions imposed by the commission. we ask all the windows and skylights must remain closed to prevent noise, odor, and security concerns. we ask that trash must be picked up in the blocks around the

restaurants. we ask that no alcohol will be served. we ask the roof be brown or green composite roof, we're flexible, not to add additional noise when it rains and blend in with the rear yard development. and with the approval and the planning. the final proof plans be provided to the neighbors at the time of the issuance and a good idea to designate a local campero contact to do a regular check-in maybe at six months to have some sort of communication. we urge that you not approve the application and impose the conditions to make it the best neighborhood it can be.

president olague: we do have some speaker cards. [calling of names] >> i wanted to take -- your name? >> paul knutsden. >> i want to state my support on the existing ban of fast food chains in this neighborhood and this is the chain that the law was designed to prevent. my understanding is to get around the law they changed the take out area and renamed it a bar and are hiring a few waiters but i don't believe that if they did that, they would be considered anything other than a fast food chain. i don't believe we should consider this anything other than a fast food chain.