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 rest

the issue is whether or not this is a valid c.u. because the language in paragraph 2, of the motion, -- i am sorry, in the n.s.r. that had to do with the motion states that after three years, after that motion was adopted, which was 2005, i think, february, that the conditional use would be invalid and expired. but there are several things that really troubles me, and it occurred to me when i was reading this. the statements i am going to make our legalistic, and it is certainly not from going to law school or treading as a lawyer, but it stems from the variance here, we have dealt with the issue of stock border. had this been brought before the planning department, to declare this was now an invalid c.u., i would think someone, certainly i would have argued, strongly that the city should be stopped because a lot of the delays were caused by the city. and also, it seems -- and i am still not clear on this -- i guess when you have a project and it is required that you file an n.s.r., and has to be attached to it. the world will know

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 d

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

operating the business for over a year and has never been in compliance with the terms of the 2007 c.u. authorization and conditions of approval. the department has an active enforcement case against the property for exceeding floor area limits for the wine sales and also for the failure to restore the store front to the historic character. and i have here for you a report an that of mr. dario jones of department staff. planning code section 218.2 allows the elimination of a grocery store if it can demonstrated that it is not economically viable. the section requires the applicant to provide 24 month of financial data indicating that the use is not generating a profit. the sponsor submitted financial data for 12 months because they have not been open for 24 months when they made the application. in addition, the business has not operated as a grocery store during that period but more of a wine store with specially grocery items similar to the present request. the applicant states he cannot make a profit as a grocery store but can do as a wine shop although it appears he has never attem

bley that this hearing tonight hinges on a very narrow issue, and that is whether or not the c.u. remains valid? >> i don't, for the reasons mr. sanchez gave. commissioner garcia: i am not saying it is not valid, i am saying that it hinges on. >> i think it hinges on the work, the interaction between the permit holder in various city agencies during this time. the permit holder went through this process in good faith that the government says jump, he says how high, he did what he had to do, what was required of him. to go back and say you need another environmental review -- commissioner garcia: we're not asking that, it is the factors that would go towards what we would make a determination on as to whether the c.u. is now. i guess i am trying to lead you to not have people in the room say whatever they want to say, but this hearing tonight is not about whether the project is worthwhile. it is a very narrow legal issue, and i am only asking if you agree with that so i might direct the people in the room to understand that we my -- we might look at this, but that does not determin

past were given the modification such as the movie theaters, the amc theaters at 1000 van ness had a c.u. that allow that to be converted. there is some housing, but not nearly the three-one ratio. there was the recent conversion of the building at van ness and california to a ford automobile dealership. i think the use for a hospital is one of the highest and best we can have, and certainly what we need housing, we have to look at this and figure out what will work, what makes sense, and can we afford it to work out? that is something we have to consider as we go through the process. because there is no guarantee, quite frankly, that the solder firm and cal pacific -- that the sutter firm and cal pacific have to build a hospital in san francisco. we're very lucky. it could be built outside of the city. you talk about the number of jobs, 3000 full-time equivalent increase. that is a huge number of jobs provided by this. i think we have to make sure that what we make sure the project sponsor does what is correct and the eir is complete and everything is analyzed that we also be careful th

a life how are you still held on c.u. i could hardly get here you know didn't i get here on foods. sixty. min a for help to survive. using crutches. goodness nina still toying with this little thing. it's my truck you know this can't you walk without using or you fight but drive on. your rope each time they said to this table they talk about how many foot was saved but women recall every single event of the day when nina came to visit but only to find that her friend was dying here when a fire was too weak to go to the shop to collect her bread russian. market is going to put on my coat and filled the boots forgotten to covered myself with a couple of blankets and was ready to die when suddenly i heard somebody watching the four door it was lena i know you covered yourself with the small blanchet here and when they go away to the cures that is where we are born holding on to a chance as it was to go it was. only a few weeks later when they found a job but the kid. i most of leningrad industrial plants turned out weapons even during the siege. i. guess they yell on the bus this is w

and that starts ticking when it the letter of decision is granted, and that state does not cause this c.u to expire because three years has now passed. i intend to uphold -- i don't know what the problem is tonight with why people don't want to pay any heed to the rules. there are reasons for the rules and it has to do with courtesy and orderliness. at any rate, i intend to not grant the rehearing request. vice president goh: i would vote for a rehearing request on the grounds of manifest injustice. i think that the clock ticking case and, likely, with others, and i also think that in the time that went by, we heard

and that starts ticking when it the letter of decision is granted, and that state does not cause this c.u to expire because three years has now passed. i intend to uphold -- i don't know what the problem is tonight with why people don't want to pay any heed to the rules. there are reasons for the rules and it has to do with courtesy and orderliness. at any rate, i intend to not grant the rehearing request. vice president goh: i would vote for a rehearing request on the grounds of manifest injustice. i think that the clock ticking case and, likely, with others, and i also think that in the time that went by, we heard from the planning department that it was compliance of conditions of approval, so the time that went by really had to do with the project sponsors failing to abide by the preservation conditions put on the building. i would therefore hold the project sponsors responsible for the time did expire. despite the fact that it will make a difference -- it will not make a difference with the two commissioners, i would vote to uphold the rehearing request. commissioner hwang: thank you

so that is to say if they're coming for a c.u. for large lot development, we would see the parks proposal and do the in-kind waiver with the entitlement. but there could be instances, though, where the developer hasn't finalized the design of the park or we don't have a maintenance plan or still discussing what we think the actual value is, but they would like to get started on the review and we have created a second way for them to get their entitlements and fill out a declaration of an intent to pursue an in-kind agreement and at least talk to the cac or talk to the city agencies and show they have had a good faith conviction and the project and the park in this case is moving along but they are not quite ready for an in-kind agreement. in that case they'd have to come back to you when the details are finalized at a second hearing and they would have to get the in-kind agreement approved at the second hearing. that would enable them to go on with the buildling entitlements in the interim. the thinked option would be -- the third

that it is -- when i look at proposals like this -- in increasing the -- increasing the area plan of c.u., one of the most dine nick neighborhoods in the city is the mission district. it is because it is kind of just kind of growing. people -- you know are allowing these things to -- all of these alternative things to happen there without any interference at all from government. >> do we need conditional use for the mission area? >> i like to take a look at where that is at. i get my -- guess my greater concern, neighborhoods that have large vacancies and are under, under developed, they -- they don't have the foot traffic and what is going on. you see, you see, a need for -- for i think relaxing of restrictions, not increasing them. that's all i'm going to say. >> what if this was tied to some type of square footage threshold, similar to what we -- what -- commissioner o'brien was proposing earlier on, where 2500 square feet and below doesn't require al use. >> perhaps that's something that we could take to the supervisor's office. and see -- see if she would be interested in that or if

and a c.u. or whatever it that might come to us. what gave rise to it is the last straw was when we got the, i think, three boxes worth of documentation on the market octavia area plan. and at that point there's just more paper than you can absorb. so a couple of years later is a quick amendment to the administrative code that very simply says if you can have a document distributed widely or outside of your own purview that is over 10 pages long, save it electronically on a disk or email as the controller does with all the current reports and receive an e-copy and it is posted on the website with the link in the email to the website should we want to open the document. i know there was some concern about commissioners and members of the board of supervisors that prefer to have all their documentation in hard copy for purposes of the meeting. that is all fine and wonderful and there is a specific language in the amendment to the administrative code that allows members of boards, commissions, and anyone that's subject to the brown act

this hour we'll bring you all the latest on the international mess before and throughout the day at c.u. unless the how it was. sergeant of the israeli defense forces. during his service scorched a street fight. if i am from the kernel of the chilean armed forces participated in keeping down a military revolt. the sergeant of the u.s. army. trying to become an american by digging pardon the. ranks and reasons differ but one thing brings them together once they disobey. more news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. china corporations are the day. eleven thirty am in moscow good to have you with us on our t.v. these are your headlines a terrorist suspect wanted by russia has been detained by polish police on his way to the warsaw prosecutor's office moscow wants. to stand trial in russia but for the last two years he's had political asylum in the u.k. . the russia u.s. strategic arms reduction treaty gets a green light from american foreign policy legislators paving the way for a crucial final vote from the ful