long time with trader joe's. >> this is only folklore. there was the jungle and the jungle gym at one point. i don't know anything more specific or detailed. i just asked that there is one on form of a retail at least. we used to go to the stereo place their and i don't know if i ever bought anything. , it was fun to go in there and i don't think that they are there any more. in any case, i don't understand why we're doing this. this was put an end to this is a brand new category and this -- i don't understand, the

conditional use process seems to be the perfectly fine process to go through with formula retail and it was going to come in there. and following up commissioner borden, i think in the future, i think that there is a question about whether or not there is a formula retail might be desirable in that area of. also, i think the problem for me is that i don't have the language in front of me, but for a special use district, aren't there specific language and the desirability and its contribution and the desirability, the contributions designed wise and everything that is going to make to the community in a letter? >> that is a special use district.

>> i don't see why this is necessary. >> i would like to pick up on the comments and just say that it is very interesting. the building as designed is an inward-looking building. however, having said that, that in itself guarantees pretty much the larger retail use and the formula kinds of users which will be current and the use of the tenant. this commission has never ever taken issue with buildings to really be for those type of use. do think that using this is more like the zoning and in the interest at all of the larger ideas that surrounded the rezoning and this is

particularly the eastern neighborhoods. i am perfectly fine with leaving this as it is, continuing to support the produce of that size. and this is one that we have and i believe that we can support this. >> i am very much in agreement with the comments that have been made so far. i could not figure out, i don't know why we're doing this. it does not make any sense to me at all. i guess i have to add the comment on the building because this is extremely pedestrian on friendly and it is not even vehicle friendly. , it is hard to get in and hard to get out.

if anyone tries to park in the roof, you cannot get in or out. and i see no problem with requiring a cu for this year. i don't know why this is in front of us. i do not know what the outreach has been. certainly, to my knowledge, there is no outreach to the commission regarding it whatsoever regarding the legislation. >> why do we have this legislation and what is it trying to do? >> it recognizes that this is a shopping area that has formula retail uses and this is an extra process or a process where the planning commission reviews it and as a commissioner stated,

this is something that is in the context of the current use of the state. we have a gun at the very minimal outreach to the community for the people who follow this issue. we did reach out and recognize that the form of a retail should be an appropriate use like this. and this is to recognize the use that is currently there. that is fine with me because i don't know, there would be a trigger, as you say, over 90,000 square feet. otherwise, let's assume -- >> to recognize that the largest tenant is 75,000 square feet. we accept the planning

department staff recommendation on and 90,000 square feet. we did have the small business commission about the impact on small businesses and they were concerned about a pennant larger than the current bed bath and beyond. that is why we have changed the size the imitations. that is basically our intent and we did receive this request from the project sponsor and did spend time with local community members. >> i am in agreement with this legislation. it keeps us from having a cumbersome conditional use process. perhaps bed, bath, and beyond was coming in. that was an internal decision to be made by the center there and it's certainly did not need a conditional use. i move approval but i don't know if anyone will second it.

>> 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 continuance is that true? >> he did and i he needed to be here at the beginning of the agenda to request a different date for it to be continued. he did not show up at the beginning of the hearing. commissioner borden: when did he inform you that he could not be here? was it this week or one month ago? >> it was probably the day before it was supposed to be continued. commissioner borden: i am trying to clarified. usually, we of -- we will

accommodate people if they ask in advance and they know. my only question is if you ask you back in march to have the date moved and we did not consider it for some reason -- >> our policy is to require either the d.r. requester or product sponsor to ask for a continuance. he was not fond of that. when he did not show up, we thought he did not want to continue it. commissioner borden: you mean on march 15? >> yes. commissioner borden: he understood that to be the case and did not show up on march 15. >> his letter said he did not understand that to be the case but mike e-mail was very clear. commissioner borden: that is what i am trying to understand. you advised him and he did not do what he needs to do. commissioner antonini: i am

usually in favor of getting on with it and getting projects finished. however, this is a bit of a special circumstance. on the 15th, staff has set plans were not adequate. there was no choice but to continue it at that time. on the 19th, the commission said, we do not feel comfortable with the plans. we continued them and they still were not ready on the 15th. there is a certain amount of confusion about when the day was going to be scheduled for the hearing to consider this. i am not sure exactly when the communication with mr. marquez was, but i am ok with continuing it to the third of may. i will make a motion to that effect because i feel it should be made clear to both the project sponsor and how it will work for the d.r. requester.

they are here, but that would be the last time, as far as i am concerned. project sponsor, yes. would the third of may were for the project sponsor? -- work for the project sponsor? >> this will be the last time he does not show up and not come up with another reason or excuse. commissioner antonini: either of the parties, we are hearing it whether you are not here or he is not here. that would be my feeling on this. >> just so i am clear, when we have the planners who have worked on this very diligently and they both blessed this project to continue. we have done everything per code. commissioner antonini: we are

just talking about whether you are available for the continuance. as i stated earlier, on the 15th of march, the plans were not adequate. therefore, a continuous is a question as to what date was acceptable for the d.r. requester your project sponsor. apparently, it is not working for him. i would like to get this finished. i think we should move its into may. if you are available may 3, we can make the motion for may 3. otherwise, we can make it for the tent. >> may 3 it is then. commissioner antonini: thank you. i moved to continue to may 3. >> second. commissioner sugaya: it is our understanding that there are enough issues that the product sponsor should attempt to meet with the d.r. requester in the meantime on both sides.

if you could inform mr. marquez and ms. hansen that we are encouraging them to meet with the project sponsor before may. >> i certainly will. they have been encouraged to meet with each other. commissioner sugaya: ok. let's give it one more try. commissioner moore: is it appropriate to make it a part of the condition of why we support the continuance? i believe we need to expect accountability towards each other while we see the dilemma he is under having to travel. i do not want to find myself on may 3 in the same kind of he said, see said -- she said.

>> i have been for a lot in my early years and the city attorney always informed the commission that although you can strongly recommend and encourage the meeting between all of the parties, you cannot demand it. commissioner moore: then we will leave it up to mr. star, who has the personal relationships to find a way to make it happen. >> he can mandate it, not us. >> the motion on the floor is for a continuance of this item to may 3. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president wu: aye. >> commissioners, you are now on case #15.

>> good afternoon. planning department staff. before i get started, i would like to pass out two additional letters and more legible proximity maps. the one in your packet is not printed very well. i apologize for that. the case before you is a mandatory discretionary review of a building permit to establish a new cannabis dispensary on 471 and jesse street. it would not allow any on-site consumption of canada -- of cannabis, including smoking, vaporizing. the applicant of this them cd was affiliated with metathrive, to close operations due to a letter from the department of justice. the mcd is not located within 1,000 feet of any elementary school or community center which