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 allow different uses. there was a motion that allowed specifically a third fast-food restaurant in the center but it was only to be used as a bakery. >> and why does chipolte fit into the use as a fast-food restaurant such as pizza hut did? is it the difference in the type of food?

what other types of restaurants can go in? >> it is narrowly drawn and that only applies to the large fast food. the restaurant they were referring to may not have been a large fast food. only this par

space. >> ok. >> i would certainly think that miss jones as representatives of lakeshore plaza has listened well to the comments of the various neighborhood organizations and i and here stand them. in defense of the plaza or in defense of business in general, might i say in 21 years the concept of individual

restaurants verses fast food has greatly changed. all individual russia wants in -- restaurants in areas that are not heavily trafficked have a very difficult time to survive. this is a fast-food restaurant which is not a derogatory term, by the way. those of the ones that survive in these locations. also in 1989, the process by which this4hñ department and commission processes formula retail has drastically changed. anything that would go in there or anywhere else obviously would come under the formula retail situation. if mcdonald's wanted to go win

and hamburgers were allowed, this would still come under a formula retail. -- if mcdonald's wanted to go in. was the oak ridge done to the various listed known neighborhood organizations? -- was the old reached down with the various listed known organizations? >> i am happy to pass forward the package that includes the 990 mailing labels that went out for the pre application meeting that was held on april 28th.

>> that did go out to the registered addresses of the neighborhood organizations? >> yes. >> aside from the form of a retail, what other uses would we have in this shopping center if we eliminated condition 30? >> this is for a large fast-food restaurant and retail use. if it was to try to enter the plaza, that would require a conditional use authorization as well as the small cell service use restaurants. >> previously when he tried to

tell me that a hamburger was a sandwich, it almost worked. i don't think it quite worked but in any case, this triggered my memory a little bit because that kind of argument revolve around what the original intent of what that section was and the neighbors definitely had a hand in crafting that language. unfortunately, i think as the staff has pointed out, back then there was not the kind of mechanisms that we would have with forma retail that are in place. this was the best way th