>> this is where people were concerned that this would be the only for the formula retells own and that speaks in a special use district. this commission has not presented itself to the form of a retail, where it finds inappropriate place and has the support. the members of the commission unanimously spoke to there's no indication that operating even with changing formula retail tenants would be a change to it. however, putting it into what, to repeat myself, into a spot zoning situation, moving it away from the process is not what i'm personally prepared to do and i make a motion to -- >> let me just state for the

record that the motion that was originally put on the floor for approval did not receive a second, so that motion dies. so -- thank you >> so i would like the motion to disapprove. >> recommend. >> recommend disapproval. >> i'll second that. >> commissioner gordon? >> i want to say, i personally do sport formula retail at this location, it makes a lot of sense. but the idea of a special use district, it's too insular and i just didn't personally feel comfortable with that. something i was just talking about direct to rim, we could ask for pedestrian improvements but can't in the system. if it's ever going to improve the benefit of the community,

it's going to be for a traditional use process. we might be disappointed if we took the opportunity to make this an overall better facility for the city. >> if we left it as you an your staff is there a care footage limitation, formula rah re-tail that would come possibly into this site? >> there's a city-wide retail of 120,000 square feet. and another formula retail wanted to come in and also take over trader joes. if it was under 125,000 square feet you're saying it could apply for conditional use? >> yes.

thank you. tharbed scenario it would be more liberal. >> yes. >> i'm sorry. there's a maximum 120,000 square feet limit on a single retail use. last 50,000 square feet triggle -- trigger for conditional use. it's not making it more liberal. >> can you tell me off the top of your head, do you know what the current zoning for costco is? >> no, i'm sorry, i don't. >> as far as the conal use process, i think as a reminder, we are under the legislation, we're all of a sudden adding another, at least two, three, maybe five conditional use processes to this commission. to consider c.u.'s to be a cumbersome process, maybe we

should look at the chu legislation and find out where uses are allowed and where they're not and not make everything conditional use. that's in relation -- never mind. that's a separate matter. >> separate matter. >> if i could ask, the c.u. process does -- is it the project sponsor's opinion that it is overly cumbersome or burdensome for this site? >> i can't speak to overly burdensome but just in terms of the appropriateness of use currently, it just seems like a process that is unnecessary given that is an existing use of formula retail here. once again, we support limitations in the neighborhood commercial district.

thank you. >> i understand that this is obviously a much more appropriate site for formula retail than any neighborhood district, we had that discussion earlier today. what's difficult, i think, again, echoing commissioner gordon's comments, it's not that we're against the formula retail that's there right now but that it's hard to set the precedent to have the first nonc.u. formula retail in this city or an s.u.d. that provides that. >> i just want to say one thing, i don't want to prolong this any longer, but don't we have something on bay shore boulevard that is a big box zone that is allowed? or is that forwarded but never

approved? i think there is something that does allow formula retail as a right. >> there is one. >> so this isn't the first, there are some others, or at least one. >> the only thing i would say, we also were forward looking into that siting having housing above it and other things. mymy only point is if you want to come back with it to this extent, i think looking at the bigger picture of looking forward, not just backwards at the current use would make the most sense. i think in that situation, there was a larger picture about how you would redevelop that site and i don't feel that's been contemplated in this process, which is the only reason i wrote that note in the first place. i'm very supportive, i don't think anyone on this commission would oppose, you know, any sort of new formula retail, it's more of an issue of looking backwards versus forward.

>> are you ready now? commissioners, the motion on the floor is to recommend disapproval of this legislation. on that motion, commissioner ant knee nee? >> no. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. >> commissioner su guya. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> no. >> passes on a 4-2 vote. thank you, submissioners. commissioners, you are now on item number -- >> can we take a 10 minute break. >> the commission is taking a 10-minute recess, thank you.

>> if everyone could turn of you are -- off your cell phones or other electronic device that may go off in these proceedings. you are on tie -- item 14, 2011.1151d at 640 hayes street. i heard that there's a request for a continuance of this item

to a different date. >> first or second meeting in may. >> i'm looking at the letter now, this is the first i'm looking at it. they're asking for a hearing in may instead of today's hearing. this is from the requester, i'm sure you all are aware generally, on a deform r. case, because there are two sides, generally we ask that the project sponsor be allowed to weigh in. i have not, to the best of my knowledge, heard from the project sponsor on whether or not they agree with the -- with the continuance. it's my understanding the staff is prepared to go forward with this case if you -- >> can we hear the project sponsor on the issue of the continuance. >> yes, you can hear both

parties or anyone else on the issue of the continuance. >> hi, good evening, commissioners. my name is valley lee, one of the project sponsors. we would like to dispute the continuance. this project's gone on too long, we've expended so much time and energy on this, we made a special trip to come back and cancel our children's spring breaks to come back to continue this. i think it's unfair. we've expended resource and time to reach out to mr. marquez who is one of the project sponsors. the d. reform requester. he is numerous times just asked me to contact his secretary. i have done so many times. i have phone records of that i

have emailed him many times. i'm never able -- just not able to get a meeting with him. we have addressed in the drawings all of his concerns as well as ms. lenny hansen, the other neighbor on our east side as well as addressing the gentleman on the facts? i have the drawings here to show you we have done. so we would like to have -- get some resolution today. we bought this property three years ago. >> just on the matter of continuance. >> it's just too much delay, you know. we have, i have two children down the street going to the chinese manufacture -- chinese-american school. this has delayed us moving into the home for three years. i don't want to continue for five year, they'll be out of that school by then.

i believe the deform r. requester did ask one of the neighbor -- jim, to speak on his behalf. let him speak for the deform r. requester. and this get -- let's get some resolution today. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is james marshall, i'm with the neighbors association, this property is at 640 hayes, i live at 700 hayes, i'm also pretty involved with this and have been over quite a while. as i understand it, the last meeting i had with the planning department and project sponsors, there were a great number of concerns expressed regarding the building and march 15 was the date that project sponsors had

agreed to have everything ready. from the last email communication i had from mr. marquez who is requesting the d.r., he moved around a lot of offshore travel so he would be here and available for march 15 when they then said they weren't ready on march 15 and needed the april date of today, he couldn't do that one and that therefore he is requesting the extension to may. this is troubling because this is a project that really has sort of gone on forever. and it's been more problematic than any single family issue i've ever experienced in the community. in conversation with the sponsors during the break, i inquired if they had had a meeting with mr. marquez and they said no they haven't, they

haven't been able to reach him and they mentioned that they had addressed ms. hansen's concerns as well and she -- the person on the east side who also supports the discretionary review and as i understand it, they have not had contact with her to review what they feel has resolved all of her concerns. so while they're saying they have tried to take into account everything, they have yet to meet with the people on the east or the west to go over and see that those things do meet their concerns. so the request for an extension to may from mr. marquez is due to his travel, having missed the

15th of march and the resetting of the date. again, it is a very peculiar thing, the residents have not been spoken with, they would strongly favor discretionary review and the ability to speak. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to clarify that the continuance from march 15 to this date was at the request of staff because the plans were not to our satisfaction at that point. we didn't feel we were ready to bring it to the commission. so staff requested the continueance. >> can i ask a question? i know it's out of order. mr. starr, it was stated in mr. marquez's letter that he had let you know at the time that the date was set that he was not able to be here and wanted a able to be here and wanted a continuance is that true?