president olague: next speakers. [calling next speakers] >> good afternoon. i'm nina coleman. dear commissioners, i love my neighborhood. and the last thing we need in our community is a fast food joint masker masquerading as a healthy family restaurant. i don't feel that pollo campero has tried to be a good neighbor and didn't follow the planning commission's recommendation to reach out to the community until days before the upcoming hearing. i have a hard time believing they will be more responsive to any of our future concerns. given the history, i don't trust them to keep their word or keep the facility as know impact as

possible to the neighborhood. the latest plan seem to be a quick fix. it could turn out to be a poorly constructed backyard shed that will pollute our backyard. please protect our small piece of paradise where my daughter explores plants planted over a century ago and can spend quiet time with the neighbor's dog and cats. thank you for your time. president olague: thank you. >> i am katherine doss and i would like to stress that having a business at 2740 mission street is a good neighbor that benefits residents, property owner, and people that go to school and work there. and so i would like to reiterate what may neighbors feel it has not been a good neighbor in the event of reaching out to us very late and trying to communicate.

so if the commission does approve the plans, i would stress you add the plans that shawn put in front of you and maybe it would be the communili that would be the assigned person to make sure the plans are in accordance and are enforced and there is no alcohol and trash is picked up. >> i believe it was one of you and few you brought it up about the ban in the mission district and if it was a kentucky fried

or burger king that was trying to have a family restaurant, you would laugh them out of here. we don't really need anymore fast food in our neighborhood. thanks. >> i am ben calderon. >> something that came up in the last hear and this is a poor location choice for this organization. they have a large kitchen and the seating is not adequate to support that kitchen and to drive up the volume and the takeout is the method for that. and we don't need that in the area in the mission and we have mcdonald's, popeyes and see trash in the area and it is not

something we need in our community. also we feel from the bartlett street group they are not going to be trustworthy throughout the implementation of the plan. last time they presented a map and showed the support from the merchants and the associates in the immediate area. i talked to two of them a while ago and they say i don't see how they could approve that thing and it will be like a burger king with sit-down dining and those are restaurants that are local to the community and we are going to. >> good afternoon. i am a homeowner in the 200

block of part let street. and i am here in opposition of pollo campero and a lot of the neighbors that have come up in front of you so far have demonstra demonstrated and laid out that they misrepresented nems to get neighborhood approval. i personally before we were recommended that we were not making the best use of our time and when the complete description of what they are and bringing to the neighborhood was explained, there was not support from anybody and when we did a neighborhood drive to get signatures on the bartlett street block one saturday afternoon within a couple of hours we didn't get 1,000 signatures but everybody did sign these oppositions.

i think they have misrepresent ed itself saying they are not fast food and show lack of respect from the planning commission from the last meeting for collaboration of all of us. and i have concerns about enforcing the verbal commitment such as garbage collection and contributing to maintaining the neighborhood and keeping it clean. i just think there is an overall lack of integrity and i am not in favor of this plan. and i also think there is an inconsistency and what the city is looking to accomplish and to support lower income families so they have access to health care and yet there is a middle school that services a lot of the lowest economic segment within our neighborhood. and that is exactly who pollo campero fried chicken chain is

going after to solicit support. i think there is a lot of conflict in that. thank you. >> i am a neighbor from 243 bartlett street and am opposed to the project because i believe that the construction will lead to odor, sound, and light that will impact the quality of our life on bartlett street and adversely impact substantially. and to intend to address the concerns. my concerns in light of some of the credibility issues is i would like to request from the commission that you help us with accountability, oversight, and recourse. and how we would like that is our concern is they have shown us architectural drawing and

that drawing has to be put into a construction drawing and that construction drawing now needs to be constructed and then the business needs to get it. and our conditions are designed to help us insure that their promises and promises in terms of no opening and the skylights don't open, that the walls be insulated, and that the ventilation goes towards mission street. we would like to make sure there is a process in place to insure those promises actually become effectuated. and we would like to review the construction plan and we would like to have review of the actual construction and some sort of recourse after the business should you approve it. and some sort of recourse that the business is actually operated in a manner consistent with all of those promise.

thank you. >> good afternoon. i live with george rogers at 239 bartlett along with the dog and kate ellie likes to play with in our backyards. and first i would like to briefly mention i don't think that this new plan complies with the 312 notice provisions because the 30 days were not provided. the next thing i would like to note is the fact that i believe they ignored the commission's direction to perform outreach for two month. we were in weekly contact with david campos' office and in constant contact with others and until may 3, 2011, exactly two months after this commission's last hearing, we did not receive any additional information from pollo campero. indeed, i emailed and left voicemails for who sibl the president of the franchisee and

after initially telling me they had not made a decision, he did not respond to the emails or the telephone messages. i understand that others were not contacted and we did not receive the new plans until may 7, 2011, 12 days before the may 19 scheduled hearing. so i do not believe that pollo campero complied with the spirit or letter of the commission's march 3 direction. i would also like to point out that as one of the commissioners pointed out at the last hearing, if it were burger kipping that were applying for -- if it were burger king applying for a conditional use application at this space, it would be denied. this is just another fast food chain by another name. finally, i would ask that if the commission does decide to improve, excuse me, approve this project, that the commission's conditions are written into the approval so that we will have

some means of recourse of making sure that our concerns are met in the future. thank you. president olague: there sni additional public comment? is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the lower 24 merchant neighborhood association. and pollo campero has reached out to us in january and has been pretty consistent communicating to us. what's been occurring and we were here at the last hearing. we have been in communication with them through emails and phone calls. i find them very trustworthy. i think everything they have talked about doing, they have been doing. currently i am talking to them about referring some local buyers to them and said they would have some roving art in the restaurant. and so we have been referring them over to mission culture

center. and so again, we're here in full support of the current plan. i think they have really reached out to folks to make it work for everybody and i think this particular plan will benefit everyone. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> commissioner, i am david lattis, one of the owners of the property, and i would like to explain one of the reasons why the delay in how we -- for the last two months and since the last hearing the commissioners and the neighbors desired a massive amount of work in order to take care of our neighbors' concerns about noise, odor,

security, and we found that this would take a multi-hundred thousand dollar additional investment in the project. and this took a lot of concern. there is eight owners to the property that i had to get in order to get their support for this. and the company and the tenancy it had to come up with additional funds in order to satisfy our neighbors. so that' one of the main reasons that we needed the plans to be developed and the costs to be determined. and raise the funds to make this project work. so we didn't know if we could do this until really just a couple of weeks ago. the other main issue i would like to bring up is that our immediate neighbors behind us, four of them that own the property, know that you have all received letters from them.

that they now support the project, whereby in the first meeting here they did not. but they now fully support and have written letters to the immediate neighbors. and also this store has been vacant since payless has been out for about a year's time. we are also active brokers and am always looking for alternate tenants in case that didn't work out. and during the course of the last year we have only had one prospective tenant which is another 99 cent store. and i don't think mission street needs another 99 cent store at this time, although i am not opposed to it because i don't want to object for that reason, but i think we can do something better with this property. and so that is my two cents. thank you. president olague: sir, you have already spoken sir -- >> i'm sorry, if someone from the commission asks you to clarify something, you can do so, but those are the rules of

the commission. everyone gets three minutes. >> i still had one minute left. >> no, you stand up here and you get one opportunity to speak and you get up to three minutes and that's the one opportunity to take that time to speak. >> sue hester. i want to follow up on the additional conditions. you all got a late email from me last night for which i apologize. because the section 311 notice and plans never went out for whatever reason, because they were not ready to talk to the neighbors until very recently, what we are asking for is you to put back exactly what people get in the 312 notice procedure in conditions, which is time to review, time to comment, and staff has to talk to people once the plans are out. there is no plan. nothing has been filed unless it was filed today. i didn't check today. but i checked yesterday and it hadn't been filed. we're asking for the staff to be

required to talk to people and the plans be provided just as though there was a section 312 notice which you are not going to do because you have this hearing as a substitute. what happened is there was no building on the site and all of a sudden there is a new building and no note and no plans. you need to build into this and it is in my conditions and i can give you my copy if you want that the consultation happen between the planning department to nail down the finishes and the path of travel and all that kind of stuff that we would have if we had real plans. number two, i have sat here when the planning commission has imposed report back requirements on many projects that are controversial neighborhood commercial districts. this one is screaming for such a contract. treat this as though it was columbus avenue, north beach, and give them the same condition

that you impose on retail projects, on restaurant projects, and at a certain point, a year, there has to be a report back. and the staff makes shower that it was built and is operating in compliance with your conditions. first thing we'll ask you to do is expand your conditions and to put on the section 312 conditions that would apply to this project if you were following properly the 312 process for a new building and a building addition. second thing is a report back to the staff to take it seriously to find out and not leaving it to the building department to find out if the building department cuts people slack all the time, everyone knows that, so the planning department should inspect the site to make sure what is represented to you

is built. i don't think it's wise in this case to rely on the building department and make sure that the operations are exactly what has been represented to you. that there is no takeout counter and is really a sit-down restaurant and report back. you know how to do it. you do it all the time. thank you. president olague: there is there in aadditional public comment? seeing none -- okay. >> my name is wallace and i am the architect for the project. i wanted to look at the conditions of approval that they were addressing. the the planning commission

conditions can be placed on the planning commission and decision can be placed on the drawings and the building department and this happens all the time, and the building department will review the design. if they don't need to review and don't need the site plan approved and they will simply send them back to the planning commission. and do what the planning commission is requiring that we do and all the same. and i also want to point out we have resolved the noise issues and the other issue and being a full service restaurant and this is what it was intended to be. and we have done everything

properly and met with the neighbors multiple times and with the supervisors and the neighborhoods groups. please approve this project. president olague: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: we're getting mixed reviews on this and i understand it. the project sponsor will probably take umbrage at my characterization that this is an oversized latin american k.f.c. but that is basically how the public is looking at it to be very truthful from the comments i get. this is a typical situation of people who do business in other areas very successfully and come into san francisco and do not

for better or worse understand the planning culture here. i think you were taken by surprise and the scrutiny which we look at the projects and that goes for commercial, residential or anything else. in my opinion you started off on the wrong foot because you didn't do things right. you didn't consult with the right people and didn't go directly perhaps to the supervisor's office which would have been the first stop. and i would like to put the condition back in a year's time

as to if the appearance to the conditions and going to in effect give a warning if i can put it this way. if i am looking at your web correctly and the manner which you operate, which i have no problems, there is a distinct possibility that you may wish to expand in this area. if you are successful here. if you do not adhere to everything in the kps and do not pay attention to what people are saying, i think you can understand the type of reaction you will get next time. president olague: is there a second? commissioner miguel: i have not made a motion. you would not -- okay. president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank

you. i am supportive of this project and i don't really think that the procedures here have been that much different than what we have commonly seen in a lot of projects. and we have something brought before us and there were some concerns about the neighbors and to be economically feasible and address most of these concerns and did a good job as far as that was concerned. and i was at the meeting and even know most of the conditions are part of the plans and we can talk about the detail of those to the type of roof with composition and other things brought up by neighbors which are probably understood from my mind and certainly agreeable if project sponsor is agreeable to

make sthur kps have been adhered to. it does not mean the conditional use will be passed today, but from the project sponsor, is that agreeable to have this look back that was suggested? it is just a report. that is all it is. not a reconsideration. we do this often and a report given to us everything is fine with the project and the informational item on the the calendar and not decision but a decision that will be made today. and i don't believe we need a new 312 because we're making modifications on a proposed project. it is not a new project. there was always an area of enclosure in the back but not a

roof on that enclosure. what we're doing is modifications there and in my mind that is appropriate. and i don't know if that was the situation. and a lot of the other things have been set and there are a lot of va vacancies in the area and there are healthy alternatives at this particular project that brings to the neighborhood and people that are consumers and some boneless, skinless chicken options and salad options and things that are good food. you can't force somebody to eat certain things. but this will certainly give the patrons a lot more options and it speaks to that particular thing. and this has always been on the

calendar and continued to a date specific to a week ago and at the request of the neighbors we had asked and the commission agr agreed and not a viability project continued to my extension and had decided to go forward with a couple of other things asked and kps and the second means of egress from the patio and as far as i understand there is a hall to allow people to exit down the side and that is important. as far as any sort of alcohol ban, i think that project sponsor has mentioned they don't intend to serve any alcohol. i think that because beer and

wine would be a permitted use, i don't know that we can set a condition. and would not be served and go against the code because this is a permitted use, is that correct? and if they have with the abc license. from our point of view, it is a finding but not a condition because we are limited to what we can do on that. and most of the other things would be doable and this definitely deals with the odor situation and the rating between the walls and the outside walls is stronger than what is required between separate condominium uses and the significant thickness of insulation and obviously the

benefits of employment and over 1,000 signatures is important, too. i will be interested in hearing any other comments from the other commissioners. i don't know about the operational windows. there -- they might have to be operational -- they're not going to be. they will never be operational. just thinking in term of -- okay. all right. that is fine. that was one of the things i won't make a motion for approval yet but wait for the other commissioners. >> somewhere i was reading that supervisor campos is there. >> he hasn't enlightened you one

way or another? >> so much for my wanting mr. campos to be involved. i have one question with respect to the condition of approval and it says and space should be provide provided and architectural addenda and does that mean architectural plans? if so, can we figure out where this space is? >> those are the assessment and there an area designated that may not be designated that way. commissioner ml: