>> motion? i move to recommend further study and the way to incorporate a public process >> second. >> commissioners on that motion to adopt the recommendation that it be further studied. >> we'll work on a process related to it. >> on that motion (calling names). >> so move forward commissioners that passes unanimously 4 to zero. >> the commission will take a quick item 8.

>> good afternoon vice president wu. i'm arson star department staff. this is to create the district along williams avenue. after supervisor cowen speaks i'm continue with my presentation >> not to prolong our discussion but the legislation before you there's a couple of things it establishes a new directs on the southernmost portion of third street and would require a new formula used for significant expansion of formula retail uses.

to give you a little bit of context. when we take a look at third street it's not zoned. so there's no formula retails that apply under the retail definitions. due to the overlay zoning and a lot of parcels are zip code. and some of the recent development there are no corridor rezoning. we realized there were no controls we would establish a limited imperil e.r. conditional use for formula rail in this area. for those of you who are familiar with the area the city

d is making a significant investment and as well as in new development along this corridor. there are also existing formula retail stores like a wall green and the mcdonald. and with all the change we're seeing in the bay verify with you thought one of the things if there's a new formula retail the city and community has an opportunity to get involved. it's not a neighborhood pits completely opted to formula rail it needs some services and it's accepted as part of the new projects. you know, increased skeerj for

ground floor proposals elsewhere in the neighborhood. but we learned from the negotiations there are ways that the community have shape the retail to make sure it's complimenty and a some challenges from the neighborhood that were we thought that would control some of the progressions of third street without rezion e zoning the properties. we thought about rezoning a lot of the properties but given the demand for the p dr space we didn't want to remove the p dr space. we're happy to participate in the process that you guys are

under golden in terms of looking at the formula retail from a citywide prospective and so we're perfectly fine with your staffs recommendation on this item. we're fine with holding off on divisional changes but we want some control established in this area so if there is a proposal if we could ask for your support or moving forward with the restricted use district and can work with the planning staff as a result of our study >> thank you. >> thanks andrea. so the properties are zoned p dr 1-b and one before retail

operation are priltd but they're not subject to formula retail controls. this will butt put in place the formula retail controls and it would be the same remittance if the code except if any corridor retail use has no persecuted authorization that business would have to get the authorization. the department is recommending that the empathies approve with modifications of the proposed ordinance to redo the boundary to include all property from williams avenue to paul avenue that face third street. i have a map here. it's also in our packet. so as you can see from the map.

through it's a little bit blurry are the commercial district end here and puppies here. so we're proposing that all properties on front and third street that are not zoned be included in that. the ordinance doesn't go that far. it goes up to here and at least out those properties right here and includes some properties in c 1920 there. the second recommendation which our familiar with from the last item is to revise the ordinance so their within the same policy rather than creating a separate section. so making changes citywide. and the final is to revise the

planning control so if a business buys an operation then it would need it permit. however, it that contains the same business it doesn't need a new authorization. if a business prufrpz a new chain the department believes this recommendations will satisfy the supervisors policies. so that concludes my presentation as also i'm available for questions >> any public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed >> a couple of comments on the proposed map. supervisor cowen's proposal includes the mcdonald's along

the east side and we're leaving it out wouldn't it be prudent to include those in the future what happens if mcdonald's wants to stop their operations and we get another formula retail. we're not just accommodating them now i admit that mcdonald's is a formula retailer. so is it under this 96 oh, i see. it that vandyke and third >> i think it's purple. >> yeah, we would start the formula controls after it and it would contain a continuance.

>> can we get the overhead please. the overhead doesn't show the name. >> it's the one above armstrong. >> the formula retail store. then i have one other question. between yosemite and armstrong they're a parcel we're recommending in the formula controls but across the street or alley are a number of small properties that are not attached i see where i'm talking about >> yes. >> and in the original proposal they were not we kept to two proposing properties that are fronting on third.

>> could we take into account that. i'm going to make a motion to go ahead and adopt the staff mementsz e recommendations. and as part of that perhaps from the supervisors office you see where i'm talking about there's a little - yeah. there are - i looked at on google and they could have bottom floor retail perhaps i don't know >> it should be included. >> right so maybe as part of the motion i add that staff together with the supervisors offenders office take into account that. okay commissioner >> i'm in agreement with the

motion. i think basically gives the district and the residents the ability to pick and choose the formula retail he establishments that may go into there and i want the modifications of staff are good ones and we brought it from williams to yosemite because those parcels were already zoned. we don't have to rezone the two parcels in that one block >> yeah, they ail have conditional use and we're asking they be having the same controls throughout the citywide. >> that make sense but i thought the other district ended at

williams. >> on the left hand the western side it does and on this right hand it goes down to yosemite. >> those are taken care of. >> commissioners there's a motion and a second on the floor to adopt a recommendation for approval with the modifications proposed by staff and for the staff to approve the proposals (calling names) so moved commissioners that passes 5 to zero. commissioners that places you on item 9. for 23 post street. as noted earlier in this hearing commissioners we received an e-mail request from the dr

requester and they have a family emergency requesting a continuance to the he said of august. >> sorry about that the absence of alicia lamp and due to the emergency in name matters and we're trying to request the the contingency - continuance of the case. commissioner moore >> there is no end of august date it would then have to slip into september because the end of august is the time we're not available so you will have to identify a possible date. >> we could put it at the last hearing in august or a later

date. >> why don't we have a little bit more discussion. >> yeah. i would assume the project sponsor is here and not in favor of the continuance. >> could you come and give a statement. >> if there are some place here to speak with the dr points. go ahead sir, >> just on the matter of continuance. >> i'm the architect for the project. regarding the continuance we just heard about this yesterday. we don't know why their requesting that. we've been very flexible in granting the questioning requests for this doctor railroad hearing. and this whole project has been good morning for several years now in relation to the appeals to the board of appeals and so we feel that there's been plenty

of time. our material was present to them in a timely manner and we feel we'll either have the opportunity to have the dr today or have it denied and move forward with the project. thank you >> thank you. so to alice representative are you agriculture to represent her today >> excuse me. excuse me. >> yeah. if we heard the item today can you representative e represent her. >> not that probably not. we need a continuance this is my mission >> will we be able to hear a little bit more why the dr

requester has not found a requester because they're never automatically we need to have a reason that is properly representative that is how it's done there is someone usually who can step into the shoes. can you explain it further >> alice just let me know and she had communicated with someone, you know, on the phone and in american people website and she told me only, you know, because her brother is here just now and left because of got to work, you know. and then i came here just for take his place and represent

alice lamb and trying to get it postponed and so far i know new england nothing about any details regarding the project. so it seems i can't do anything i'm sorry about that. >> i'm interested in what the commissioners have to say. i'm not inclined to allow the continuance. >> i agree we have the case report here it's pretty straightforward and we certainly will take comment from the dr requester. i'd like to hear the staff report in a moment >> commissioner moore. >> the only way i would grant

indicate there was a potential misunderstanding of progress. lost in translation is what i call it. could you indicate to us there might be a misunderstanding in process >> yesterday afternoon she contacted us my phone of a family emergency without going into any detail and wanted to case to be continued and she would ask but it would be up to the commission whether or not the case would be continued. i spoke with ms. lamb to send a representative if she couldn't be here in case the case was not continued.

>> my interpretation is the gentleman speaking here is not the representative that the before a brother was who left. we don't have it in writing and we don't have a full interpretation of the applicant is that crick? we should proceed into the dr there's a failed instruction here >> i ask for a continuance this was related to a variance and i do feel like we should here it. if i do hear a motion to continue in this case we can

hear the case report >> we will not be postponing. >> they're to have the hearing now. >> oh, so is there any chance to appeal or - >> no. >> oh. >> you can appeal it to the board of appeals again. >> she asking can have is a chance to appeal but she's going got to be here. >> once the permit t is issued she can appeal it to the board of directors. >> i will let her know about this. >> can i leave? >> you know. >> thanks. >> you can stay and also represent the dr requesters position. >> i could stay and what? >> speak on behalf of her

representative. >> you're going to present - >> they're going to present the case. >> good afternoon david lindsey of department staff. case 205 is a request of a discretionary review of the replacement of the decks and strarz of a 3 story building at 2529 post street. the proposed desk would be awe butting the property line which is the dr requesters property. the new stairs would be constructed dialogly in the center of the property. the exciting desks which will be removed are set 2 fline.

the project as proposed required rear yard variance which the administrator considered at the public hearing in july 2012. the zoning administrator grand the variances in november and the variance decision was appealed to the board of appeals by the current requester. the appeal was considered in february and upheld the variance decision. the dr requester is alice lamb of posting street which is directly west of the subject property. her concerns are that the project is not code compliant hence the variances, the rear decks awe butler firewall which

could be a fire hazard and she has concerns about potential initial side from the decks. the original design team looked at the project and mind it does not contain imply exceptional circumstances. and the blank east wall and thus would have no effects on their privacy. it's consistent with the guidelines. the department recommends that the commission not take dr and approve the project >> thank you. so the dr requester you can q represent alicia lamb >> no. >> no. so does that mean we should move

on >> is there anyone from the public who wants to speak from the public. >> i'm sorry because i had no idea about this case and i shouldn't say anything not to say anything i shouldn't say so i 0 would like to be silence. >> seeing none, let's have the project manager speak. >> i'm the architect for the project. i'll summarize the project. i think as it's been mentioned the way the properties are configur configured there's basically a plank wall that's been considered. this is the existing deck as it now is and tartsdz this corner of the property there's about a 2 foot 2 distance between the

current open rail deck and the solid blank wall. we're proposing to position the deck awe butt the blank wall and being back about 6 feet behind ms. lafrmz rear wall so any kind of prices we're going to saying we're not intruding on her light. there's been some studies done and this is the more and more sun we're not casting my shadow on her property and in the afternoon it's just the opposite. were her blank wall is casting

shadow on our property. we feel it's a aspire design to what's there we're p.o. box the reconfigured deck up against this blank wall and the majority of mid open space is out in this area here and by p.o. box the deck in this manner we're down to this corner to have light into her property and we feel we're not impacting the neighbors and providing a better solution which is approximately centered in the property. on all accounts we're proposing a better solution and i'd like to say we've addressed a lot of

ms. lambs - we've made efforts to address ms. lambs issues with the project and she keeps saying she wants it to be in the same spot it is. i believe we do have to demolish this section so if we were to demolish the deck and have it in the same configuration we'd have to have is a firewall too close to hers and that's on undo hardship and creates, you know, trash and other things and be of no use to the current oerpdz of the property. also i think it wouldn't be possible to do that in any way

by the way, u because you couldn't gain access to the walls for the maintenance of the walls it wouldn't be allowed to build a structure of this manner. i and i want to have the owner speak as well >> good afternoon. i just wanted to @ add onto the point of view this is a primary place of enjoyment for the backyard. as andy showed this is my background and there's a wooden structure two feet away from thathe

property than what she has. we've been dealing with this for two years and i have in this packet two letters from residents i wanted to show you that they're here. this property and abuts our backyard additional she was a large deck structure and she provided a letter he saying this is no privacy southerners to her. and there's another letter from that resident saying the same thing and welcoming the project to continue. our family i'm on the mid unit and the upstairs our upstairs neighbors have 2 childre