conditions of approval attached to the 2001 c.u. authorization that allowed the establishment of the restaurant required that the restaurant servicto indoors outdoor portions of the subject property were to be inaccessible to restaurant patrons and an attached copy 206901 conditions of the approval is included in your case report. if the subject's conditional use authorization was approved, the conditions of approval attached to promotion number 16327 will be superseded by the amended conditions of approval. currently, there are two open enforcement cases. the first case for violation of conditions of approval attached to the 2001 use authorization with respect to outdoor activity use, hours of operation and odor and garbage. the granting of this c.u. application would address the outdoor activity violation. a second code enforcement case is for operation of a large fast food restaurant instead of full-service restaurant. a large fast food restaurant is not permitted in the zoning district. that the time the project sponsor has indi

can they decide to avoid the c.u. process we're going to use it for storage and said? bridget for storage instead? >> it is important clarify that it was not an exit space, it was not a space under their use or lease, that if they were too common with a revised. and crossed that out, we would have a question of whether they still had any intention of using that space or any intention of occupying or renting that space. the case it is it has never been their intention to occupy or use this space. vice president garcia: i am not suggesting that. before you go down that road, what i am saying is given the plants they had, if they are to avoid the c.u., they're not barred from designating some space as nine use. >> as long as it is less than four dozen square feet, that is acceptable. vice president garcia: some question if that is manipulative, etcetera, but that is available to them. >> the space in question is not for the sole use of the candidate, it is not for the soy use of the subject tenet, so i think it is clear that it should be left out of the usage copulation.

and of course i support a lot of the ideas around c.u.'s and parking and this kind of thing. and it seems that the working relationship is good -- is good at the moment. between our staff and the c.a.c. and i want to thank the members of the c.a.c. for being here, mr. henderson, and mr. levity, for -- levitt, for all your leadership in that area. it's important for us to hear from you. because we get overwhelmed here at times also. so it's important for us to, you know, be able to -- we appreciate whatever input you can give us since you're there. and you see things more closely than we do. and certainly in the hayes valley area. so thank you, kirsten, for all your work. and it's really exciting to see that we've come so far. and getting us to move along. and ms. dennis, too, thank you. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i want to make a quick comment on the small car. and not that you can mandate that people have small cars. but in europe, there are parking spaces that are dedicated for two smart cars being next to each other and they pay half. in public garages there a

i think we can exempt it by c.u., and as was part of the mayor's plan, we will exempt it by c.u. the question is, what should be the price that they have to pay? and i think that, you know, the $73 million is an's -- is an unrealistically high figure. whatever ends up being negotiated is important but the important thing of what's negotiated, it should be applied as the nexus of the impact that the hospital has on the area. and we should -- this is a great opportunity to provide middle income housing that the city does not build, housing for nurses, housing for doctors, even though nurses, i understand in the sutter system, i may be wrong, the average salary is around $130,000 per year. well, i may have the wrong information. i may have the wrong information. >> how can you think that? >> ridiculous. commissioner antonini: i believe i have the floor. whatever the salary is, and what the salaries of doctors are, it still is not enough to afford housing in san francisco. and i think that this is the whole problem we have. we have a situation where people are making too much to get

cpmc is requesting c.u.'s for both and this will be discussed in this presentation. at the last hearing, the commission asked for a graphic representation of the project, juxtaposed to the code complying project. this slide shows the comparison in the form of massing diagrams. the image on the left is the existing hotel. that is slightly taller than what is a code complying, being approximately 137 feet, and it exceeds bulk limitations. the middle is the hypothetical massing diagram, meeting the code requirement, meeting the bulk limitations, and meeting the seven-one that limit. the image on the right is the massing diagram of the proposed hospital project at van ness and geary, two but a 65 feet tall on the southern side of the site, requiring modifications to block and includes sar of 9-1. -- it is at 265 feet tall. this slide on the left is the existing development along the project site. the mittal diagram is the hypothetical project that is a code complying meeting the book limitations. the third diagram on the right is the proposed project which is code comply

as well as the c.u. let me just say to begin with very briefly on the preapproval process, this project went before the planning commission and the e.i.r., the environmental review applications was submitted first in 2006. the department published a notice of determination that an e.i.r. would be required in 2008. then they began the draft e.i.r. process and that was accomplished on june 23 -- published on june 23, 2010. so the appellant can hardly say that somehow this project was preapproved because the mayor's office of housing decided to make some grand money to do predevelopment activity. up cannot do an environmental impact report without any money. you cannot do an environmental impact report without an architectural plan or elevation for the department to analyze and that is the money that was loaned to booker t. by the mayors over housing so that they can make sure that the process can move forward. as i pointed out in my letter, the mayors of the housing has no responsibility or ant or legal au

we will deal with it in the beat -- the c.u. process, but i want to thank you because they do not think that process is working very well. president o'brien: commissioner o'conner? commissioner o'conner: what is the location? supervisor mar: it is across from the old alexandria theater. commissioner o'conner: the second is that i just want to show my appreciation that you listen to the voice of the small district -- small-business in your commissioner area. thank you. president o'brien: commissioner? commissioner: i believe that petco did impact is small independent pet stores, and i am very sensitive to predatory pricing by large companies that can offset their higher costs of doing business in san francisco with their lower-cost operations and other jurisdictions, so it is really not a level playing field, and the impact is tremendous, is an impact and often cannot be assessed in three months or six months. sometimes coming 18 months is the time it usually takes for people to change their buying patterns and start to respond t