typically there is not room for that. but in a store of this size or some of the other grocery stores in the 5,000 to 6,000 square foot range they have a back room. that is not considered in. >> case in point a market that took out their back room and made it more roomy within the market itself. it was a huge change. my only question i guess on this what i am hearing is the biggest violation is the excessive beer and wine sales as opposed to -- beyond 15%. not the other uses such as permitted uses such as takeout food and food served on the premises and the fountain. >> the restaurant portion does appear to be operating within

the parameters set by the commission in 2007. the grocery store is not. the wine sales has exceeded the area that is permitted and the grocery part, -- the 2007 action was in part to preserve that grocery store. if we do this and this we can still sell the groceries. but they didn't. they went on and put in the restaurant and the wine sales but they did not really develop the grocery portion. the other concern is the facade and i realize that a lot of people like the facade the way it is now however the building is a historic resource and has been determined to be that by the department. and to change the facade in the way they have really takes away the historic character of that building. it had a very distinctive facade of its period and the improvements that they made, granted they were extensive and

expensive went in the opposite direction of what the commission asked them to do. >> don't they have to get plans approved as they go forward through the permitting process? >> yeah. >> somebody signed off on it. >> yeah. >> it is not entirely their fault. they may have gone against the specific dictates of the c.u. but somewhere in permitting went ahead -- ok. thank you very much. appreciate it. well i still will probably vote against the disapproval because i think there is room for latitude here and i think we should work with them to have them do this and have the larger wine and beer sales which seems to be able to keep them afloat and there might be other ways we can insist on having more groceries in there if that is what the feelings of the commissioners. but i think to force them to go back to the original c.u. entirely is probably

unrealistic. >> the motion on the floor is for disapproval of the permit. on that motion. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> motion fails on the 3-1 vote. >> move to continue. >> i don't know when. i guess when we have a fifth commissioner. we do have five on the commission. so it could be to a time when we think we will have now a full commission or where we think we could get a deciding vote. >> the only thing that i can is for one week when commissioner moore is back. i can't predict when anyone cells appointed. do you want to continue in a week?

>> maybe indefinite i guess would be better, probably. indefinite would probably. >> yes. at this point unless you know of other weeks when you think we will have a full commission beyond next week full as it stands now. >> i don't show anyone else out on that day. >> all right. i will move for the 14th if that seems to be the first available time that we will have a full commission, and it may be a little fuller by then. you never know. >> is there a second?

>> i just want to know the implications of not continuing the item. >> my understanding is that as it stands they do not have approval for the conditional use they have requested. denying this motion does not mean the project is approved but it requires a request of a conditional use. and they don't have one. so they do not have approval to do what they propose. >> basically the c.u. is denied. there is no mechanism for you to approve the use. >> but it is not disapproved either. it could come back at some time i guess. if you are disapproved you can't come back for a year.

>> the only thing is not limited is their ability to come back in less than a year. >> they could bring it back at another time. >> they clearly do not have a approval for the c.u. >> yes, absolutely. >> and we clearly do not have a second for a continuous. so that motion dies. >> thank you. >> thank you. again to reiterate for the public the c.u. has not been approved which would allow the project sponsor to be bringing it back on a future date. commissioners you are now on item number 132010.0366 c for 1501 sloat boulevard lake shore plaza shopping center. >> good evening president and members of the commission. michael smith planning department staff.

you have a request for a conditional use authorization to establish a formula retail large fast-food restaurant doing business as chipolte to replace the existing pizza hut in the lake shore neighborhood. the project seeks to amend motion number 11545 to remove board of supervisors condition which limits the types of food that can be sold at large fast-food restaurants within the shopping center. the property is located within a nc-s district. the motion limits the number and tipes of restaurants permitted in the shopping center. the project complies with this motion and it would replace an existing large fast-food restaurant and not result in a net gain of large fast-food restaurants in the shopping center. two different petitions signed by 133 different people in support of the project have

been submitted to you. since the report the department received a few additional letters from residents in the neighborhood for and against the project. the homeowner's association submitted a letter in opposition to the request. concerns raised by the association include existing trash from the existing restaurant in the shopping center and how that is imfecting their narkedes. also underage alcohol sales and drinking in the shopping center late at night in the parking lot. and the removal of board of supervisors condition 36 which limits the types of food that can be sold at large fast-food restaurants. pizza parlor, i don't go utter store, deli, bakery, ice cream, sandwich, barbecue, canned and he nuts. they feel it would open the door for restaurants such as mcdonalds and similar types of

restaurants. the department determined the proposed restaurant does not comply with condition 36 under those uses that were stated and would currently not be permitted. want to say i received correspondence today from commissioner miguel. i believe property managers are here to answer questions. they believe it is necessary or desirable for the following reasons. in 1989 a limit on types of foods that were place on the projects to address the concern of neighborhoods over mcdonalds possibly locating in the shopping center. since that time the department developed more effective code regulations that address this concern eliminating the need to regulate food uses in the manner done in condition 36. project would allow greater flexibility to augment the

types of restaurant and restaurant tenants in the shopping center to meet the consumers ever-changing tastes. it would replace a formula retail use with another not altering the balance. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> i represent lakeshore plaza. we have a short presentation. we will be able to fit it within the 15 minutes. courtney jones is with cross point who essentially runs the center on a day-to-day basis. she will turn over to scott. scott is with chipolte and i will come back for a few minutes at the end to wrap things up and summarize what we are asking for.

>> i am a portfolio director with the reality services. since 2000 cross point represents the real estate u.s.a., the owner of lake shore plaza. i directly oversee the day-to-day operations and leasing for lakeshore plaza. many probably shopped at lakeshore. it is a community shopping center serving western san francisco with uses such as grocery, dry cleaning, hair and nails, family dentistry, postal services, sporting goods and apparel and baking. it also offers various food options such as frozen i don't go utter, coffee, bagels, sandwiches. what we are here today is to talk about condition 36 a considerable challenge for to us work with.

many of the allowable uses occupy space well under 1,200 square feet. second other existing tenants of the center already offer bakery or barbecue items on their menu. this leaves pizza as the only remaining option for this space under condition 36. lastly, under condition 36 we are not such as mexican food, greek food, wraps, chicken, salad and soup bars, crepes or ethnic food uses.

when pizza hut said they would be vacating the center we actively marketed the space for replacement tenants. to date we have been able to identify a suitable replacement tenant whose use complies. chipolte expressed interest. after meeting with them as well as hearing a positive response from the community we are here today seeking approval to not only allow them under the formula retail use requirement and amend the c.u. by eliminating the condition 36. >> i am the director of operations for chipolte

northern california. just a little background history, the founder actually used to be a chef here in san francisco. he got a four-year degree in new york. used to shop the mission district quite frequently and decide i am going to try this burrito and taco deal. he went to denver, colorado, got a loan from his father and opened up his first chipolte. it was an unbelievable success. we have over 1,000 restaurants right now and three here in san francisco. our primary food is burritos, tacos and salads. we are heavily invested in naturally raised meats, organic beans, and we are very popular with kids. all of our food is absolutely

fresh. nothing is frozen. we spend many hours in the morning before we open our shop chopping, dicing, making salsas and marinating our meats. it is a great operation and great restaurant. as far as the community involvement we really dive in with the high schools, elementary schools. we have actually built gardens for the elementary schools to show them what great food is and we have also been fundraisers for the high schools and things like that. none of our food is wasted. at the end of every day we deal with second day harvest and reach out to the community center and give it to the harvest programs. as far as. ment, we usually have 20-25 people that will work in that restaurant.

hours of operations typically is from 10:30 in the morning we will open up the restaurant and usually close around 9:30 or 10:00. that is pretty much the operations. thank you. >> thank you. >> just to wrap up, so again we are here on the formula retail request specifically for chipolte and as michael smith alluded to we can't have it without some change to the c.u. and we are asking for what we believe the condition that really constrains the types of food in certain spots of the center to be removed at this time. this change would only apply to the three large fast-food spaces within the center, not the others. there are a handful of other uses it does not apply to. so it does not increase or decrease the number of food uses in the center, it does not

increase the size. it is just the change in the types of food for there's uses. food and menus evolve over the years, we have ran into a problem. i think courtney described it. we think it will probably go vacant if pizza hut leaves if it is not changed. there is nobody that fits within that really, really narrow band of food usages that fits that space. again, they can offer some more variety to the center and patrons of the sister. michael mentioned there are a number of people that frequent the center that signed petitions and i will hand those forward as well. we have 140 signatures that were signed in the center

itself. there is a lot of support for this and it is a reasonable request to not be restricted to things like candy and nuts but offer a more diverse food use. we are happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. i have a few speaker cards. >> good evening. i am a member of the pine lake park neighborhood association. my association in 1992 in the lakeshore was rebuilt and supported the other community groups opposing fast-food outlets. that has not changed. we continue to oppose fast-food outlets in the lakeshore plaza facility.

i think that needs to be clear. that is a long-standing position on the part of the neighborhood regardless of 140 signatures, whether they are online or on the street. the neighbors are continuously opposed to fast-food restaurants in this neighborhood. one other point i bring up is that i did not really have request notification of this meeting, ok. the neighborhood association were not informed of the preapplication process and just today i received notification of the commission's meeting today on this subject. i think that there is a need for a continuous of this item. that is one item i bring up. other things have to do with the condition 16 the cleanlyness of the operation and the community area there and condition 36 having to do with the type of food establishments allowed. we are very concerned with cleanlyness in the area. i happened to go to the chipolte in westlake.

i noticed they had outside tables. i hope that is not an option at this one but we do not know. community hasn't been fully informed. with regard to condition 36 we find it troublesome that retail outlet will be used as a way to open up two other possible retail outlets. we don't want to see condition 36 given up in any way, shape or form. another concern we have is with alcohol. i noticed when i went to the one in westlake there was beer, alcohol, margaritas available to patrons. that is continuously been a concern within lakeshore plaza development. we have schools in the neighborhood here. we have continuously had a problem with underage drinking in the area. it is always a concern to us. so replacing a pizza parlor with a fast-food outlet that provides alcohol is a concern to i think a majority of the

neighbors. so i would move to the conditional use disallowed. at the least i would move for a continuous of this item. i think my time is up. but this issue needs to be addressed from the standpoint of the community and not just a business owner. prior business owner said he lost $780,000 in the last year. i think they can afford a continuous -- >> my wife and i have lived a block and a half away from this plaza for the last 39 years. the old plaza was flattened, and the new one was built on the basis of a c.u. from 1989.

anyways, it has been over 20 years. and at that time the planners, particularly one whose name told me that this is set in concrete. they figured out the percentages or whatever and that is the way that it was going to be. it has been tried to break these things but it hasn't happened yet. my feeling is that i don't think chipolte would really have a problem of functioning in the pizza hut space. they are just coming up with an argument to crack this section 36. as far as i am concerned this is a trojan horse to get other outlets that the owners or the rental agents want to be able

to do but which they can't now. if you knock it out you will practicically have a food court there, yet what hfs envisioned before which would be a multiservice type of plaza. there should be other services other than food. i believe most of the houses around there do have kitchens. it is not that kind of a thing. in any case i would say to you i have no problem with chipolte, but i do have with 36 because these are two separate uses and regardless of what has been said by the chipolte representative they can adjust their menu to be requirements

involved and the rest i say is a trojan horse. i thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am here today at the request of the president of the homeowners. you have board members from pine lake neighbors, you have us that are immediately surrounding the plaza. the plaza is right in the middle of our neighborhood. and you have others concerned because part of their area is right next to the old high school. in the letter that i sent you i alluded to one of the big on going issues we have is cleanlyness. condition 16 in the original conditional use permit requires the management of the plaza to

ensure not only the plaza is clean but that they go a block beyond to make sure it is clean and clean up the major routes to and from the high school. that has never been done in the entire history. now, this is i believe the fourth or fifth management company to handle the plaza and the third ownership. i can't believe they have not seen this requirement. they take care of the plaza. sometimes a little shaky. a lot of times it is ok. but they need to do this. and this needs to be addressed before chipolte comes in. when we went to the preapplication meeting the representative was excited about having students come down. that is fine. but you can follow your way between the plaza and there tripping over food wrappers.

ok. that is not acceptable. it spills into other areas. i would like to refer you to page four of my letter that i wrote on behalf of the homeowners. i will just read it to make it much easier. under 36 types of restaurants permitted is culturaly basised. this conclusion is wrong. we do not object to chipolte as a mexican restaurant. we object to it as a fast-food restaurant. we have a concern with the entire plaza. there are more fast-food outlets of various kinds than we thought would come in when we originally agreed to the conditional use when everybody came down here 20 years ago now to deal with this. what has happened is the fast food outlets inside luckies is not counted. the zoning administrator had

his hands up in the air. you don't need to change condition 36. because there has been a mexican restaurant in that plaza for a number of years that worked just fine and they operated under condition 36. it is my understanding that when this c.u. was written nothing ethnic was put in there. >> thank you. >> i live on one of the narrow streets that people travel on to get to the high density big businesses at lakeshore plaza. my main concern is the traffic being generated by increasing the incremental use over the years of facilities at lakeshore plaza, which was

meant originally to serve the immediate neighborhood, is now serving a much larger part of san francisco. to continue this from lakeshore plaza that do not serve the immediate residence is not tolerable. the claim has been mentioned. i have no -- even though the volume of traffic from chipolte will be greater than that from the pizza place i have no great objection to that. but i have a great objection to making any changes that would make further incremental adverse effects to our neighborhood possible. thank you. >> thank you.

is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. mr. smith. >> go over why the change in condition 36 and what makes it different than when there was an individual change like for noah bagel. in other words, you are asking for a change in condition 36, right? ok. when noah's bagels went in, that had to be a special condition. is that correct? >> yes. >> all right. is there a difference between the two? >> it is my understanding that when noah's bagels went in that was an establishment of an additional large fast-food restaurant and not simply to