102.3.5, it shows how that is done. you cannot fix this because the corridors are too narrow. i want to stick with another observation. not just for the entrance and the exits, but it also holds for unit access regarding ada. it is really important that the code is clear on that. you have to understand what it means. if you are on a wheelchair on the slight side of the door, you need, i think, 18 inches in order to allow for you to open the door and moved in. that is from the entrance as well as on the unit doors. if you do not have that, you do not have the thing to hold and for us not in and a wheelchair

-- for those of us not in a wheelchair, you might get your hand caught. it is too close to the door and the wall, and that is not shown here. this building is so tightly designed around the columns, that the building does not provide that. to redesign that would require everything on the internal life out to be changed, which will be very difficult if not impossible. somebody said to me, where are you going with this? the reason i am taking the technical side of the discussion is, we do not have any standards, not in the residential guidelines, the neighborhood discussions, about what constitutes have ability and livability. it is partially addressed in the

chapters of the building code, which deal with health and safety. the overriding policy statement, what is a good unit, what is even a small a good unit? i believe that this design, and i'm not talking about policy, does not meet the minimum requirements of functioning units from the bedroom discussion in which commissioner miguel take off to the elevator exiting discussion i mentioned on the ada general safety. it just does not work. in the attempt to meet the exposure units, which was an awful lot to decide on, the court judge has been made slightly -- the courtyard's have been made slightly larger. in the process of increasing the

courtyards, the average unit i see are small. it is 20 square foot there. we are dealing with units that are average too small. when you have the smaller units and bicycle parking right outside your window, if you have them on the grounds, one of the units to see where the bicycle parking are right into the window, you are checking into a suburban motel where you have to keep the windows drawn all the time in order for those people who continue to pick up their bicycles, which you would like to use it for viewing your porch, which is impossible. this design is just, together with the technical challenges, is something which we should not approve. partially because the building has presented being redesigned

to a larger extent. i am not saying it cannot be done, but it has got to be done differently. i appreciate that the developer said the time to respond to some of the challenges. that is well done. the unit layout, asking me to give approval is not going to fly because the building just does not work. i could go on. there are other code issues. i have not had the opportunity to talk in detail with staff about it. i believe the commission should have disclosure. exiting and water heaters, and bicycle parking, where you are not going to have corridors for

safety. this might require -- the premises of using a technical demonstration of the building to demonstrate not only does this building not meet building codes standards, but also brings the building to compliance, it would require a total redesign. this commission should be, in principle, are proving a building -- approving a building which is in compliance. that is not here. commissioner sugaya: is your designer here? is it the convention of using a circle in a bathroom indicate the clear space necessary? >> not always. commissioner sugaya: so you get a sink in the middle of the

circle? >> yes. commissioner sugaya: let's start from scratch here. there have been some conditions that have been described that do not exist. we went to dbi with this building design and went through all of the design is used. prior to putting it together, it was indicated that we met all of the requirements. she has brought up some code issues that indicates to me that she is not familiar with current code. number one camara -- number one, if you look at the aba standards, we need them explicitly. the building has been gone for with a fine tooth comb in relation to that. her comment about the elevator is not true. commissioner moore: would do the so kind as to address me as the

commissioner? thank you. >> the current code allows for a drop down smoke door into an open area that needs the fire code requirements. that is the case. commissioner miguel's concern about the loss, the fact they are designated as studios in the case that they can put a bet wherever they want. we have got a fixture indicated that could be a drop down bed from the wall. it could not. so these concerns about the design, i think, are misplaced. i'm not quite sure why they're

being brought up. if someone is opposed to the project, just say you are opposed to the project. instead of bringing up issues that do not exist to convince other people that the project is a bad one because you think it is in your opinion. that is what i think is going on here. you brought up issues that are not true, do not exist. you pull them out of the air. i do not know where you're getting your information. if there are any other questions, i would like to certainly answer them. president olague: i would like the zoning administrator to address some of these issues. >> and we did receive the concerns and we did go to the building inspection yesterday to review the plans with them. this was one of the first times

that they had seen the plans. no building permit application has yet been submitted. did you do a pre-application meeting with the building department? >> not an official one. i met with the director of the department. we went over the plans personally. >> we went over the matter with their technical services division, on the ground floor of 1660 he mission street. their initial review of the plans were that there were no major code issues. that is where we are. no building application permit has been submitted. we are not aware of any documentation from the department of building inspection that would state that all the building code requirements have been met. that would be required before any permits could be issued for the property. commissioner borden: i have a question. if what commissioner moore has said is true, when they file an application and building permit, they would find out that the

plan is not workable, then what would happen? with that target a redraw or with as they within dbi? >> any change in the floor plan configuration would be routed back to planning. we would ensure that complies with the commission decision income and if there were any deviations from the approved plan, that would trigger a new review from a rigid new review from the commission. if they are minor tweaks to the floor plan, those do not generally come back to the commission. the thing about the units that may have exposure issues, that would be a concern and may require a new variant if they would increase the number of units. commissioner borden: i do not have the technical expertise of ada compliance law or building code to make a determination. i would assume you would build a buildings that will -- you would

build a building that would meet those standards. i was here -- i was not here for the first discussion about this project. maybe someone could give me more feedback. i know there has been -- dwelling unit exposure has been the major issue with this project. maybe someone could talk a little bit about the spirit of the last conversation. i would like a little bit more insight about how we got here. it does not sound like the new project meets the goals of what we had set out for. i want to understand that. commissioner moore: i want to summarize briefly. in our last meeting, everybody is excited about this building being taken on by the applicant. for adaptive reuse. the concerns start with small units and what we believe, what i believe, is an unlivable unit,

particularly in these 325-323 square foot range. you can sit down now. we do not have anymore questions for you. >> you do not have any questions for me? >> not at the moment. there was retail space in the 200 square feet, slightly larger than what a car size is. we made some challenges. the at the core of the commissioners' discussion is, with adaptive reuse, for this kind of building code type, in an attempt to identify the city, we do not want to take tenement units. today's redesigned showed smaller units. i am not sure these units need

to be starting in the low for hundreds. -- low 400's. that are starting at 3 entered 50 or something like that. this has certain constraints, but for a creative designer, i think you can design a great building without having to come up with what you have here. my pushback on it is, and i repeating myself, was no policy for what is the minimum standard. there is no policy for how we find livability in higher density housing. this design does not meet the expectations. i believed that we are setting a precedent that this building has to be designed to a higher standard, particularly when there are deficiencies which, i think, have not been fully guided -- vetted.

i am disappointed to hear that the applicant talked with dbi only two of the zoning administrator tell us that he is not had a formal conversation. mr. gardner is experience in buildings. whether or not he is experienced in retro and adaptive reuse, i do not know. i say -- i see a number of inefficiencies. i am not ready to approve this design, because it sets a standard which we are proving for 320 square feet. with the admission that the loft cannot even be slashed on. that is a deceitful presentation. i do not believe we can sit here and say that all units, because

the ceiling height is not met, how you sleep is an altogether different matter. folded furniture which you put on the wall at night. will you sleep in front of your refrigerator? i'm not sure, but i cannot support that approach to design and i cannot support that approach to livability. i am making a motion that we deny. >> second. commissioner borden: there are a couple of issues here. an issue about unisize, which would determine this apartment does not have a standard on. we approved units as small as 250 square feet because there were considered affordable by design. i know that a lot of people live in all kinds of all situations where i would not want to, where they cannot sit up out of their beds. but people do live that way.

if i understand, this will become a condominium building in, so people will be buying the building. at the price it would be buying for, i do not have the concern about a being a tenement building. we need to trust the dbi. if we do not have a set standard for dwelling unit size, i do not know how we hold this project sponsor liable for a particular size. if there are specific tweaks to design, i think that would make a lot of sense as to how we could advise the project moving sort -- product moving toward. i do recall as approving 200 cities where feed. lots of people have different requirements for space and how they use it. some people like really large spaces and some people like small spaces. i think our society is too obsessed with the acquisition of space for rooms that you do not even go into every day.

i think it is a very subjective call on that regard. particularly on the standard. i will see how this motion goes. commissioner sugaya: one question, back to the project sponsor. on the 62 presidential list, it says studio and lost at 300 square feet, up one bedroom loft at 545, etc. is that square footage included in the loft space that cannot be used from up above or just the ground floor? or the floor down below? >> the ground floor down below. commissioner sugaya: i think the insertion of furniture in your -- in here gives not a false impression, but i am considering buying a foldout bed for a condominium because it will save

some space. there are those that have couches in front that folds over on. there are all kinds of innovative ways that are available that people can use to accommodate both sitting down and having a bed. that kind of thing. to me, that can all go where the sofa is shown and the table is shown and that kind of thing. in a way, i cannot see myself sleeping in a four-foot space, but if that is additional room for storage, that would be great. in any case, i do not exactly like the life out here, -- i do not exactly like the life out here, but i am not necessarily against the smallness of the

units. commissioner antonini: -- commissioner sugaya: more of a concern about unit exposure. it still seems fairly high to me. commissioner antonini: i feel the same way as commissioner sugaya. i think we've gone a long way to satisfy the unit's exposure situation. inflexibility is the key thing here. -- flexibility is the key thing here. i will make an argument that we should not incentivize smaller units, but if we allow people the ability to buy these units if they so choose, we are not forcing anybody into these, as long as they are compliant and dbi approves them as being enough space and the layout is enough, and they are fire code

complianct, i think is an interesting concept and some think it would be interested in. i think they made great strides in modifying this. i am supportive of it. i do think that the units are small, but it is an elective situation. forcing people -- we are not forcing people in here or taking people who are challenged and putting them into these units. we are allowing them to be built and they can be purchased by people who choose to live in a smaller unit. commissioner moore: i will take another tack at that. i am in support of small units. these units, because of their layouts are designed so that small does not work. the devil is in the detail. i take issue with the design and

what it does not do more so than the smallness of the units. i believe that the building itself is still, for me, unfortunately, 12 pounds in a 10 pound bag. for example, i want to direct that part of my discussion to mr. gardner. i want to talk about the parking spaces. there is no parking required. in the six parking spaces which are proposed may be designed to serve the tenants, but they also might be designed to serve others because there is no access from the garage. you have to go to the street, open the door, etc. if those things would not be there, it might be a financial consideration because you're creating an additional benefit of the project.

if the project was well- designed, it would register some of the units and come up with a design which is slightly different. for example, by saying that we want to talk about quality of design year. the thing that the courtyard has gotten larger in order to give more light to the units, the courtyard for the upper units has gotten larger. the courtyard for the lower units, there is an overhang which makes less like in the smaller units on the ground floor. it is like in the motel where the walkway hangs over the window. there is a larger courtyard that is not really helpful as a body. the thing with the bicycles --

that the bicycles are in front of a unit, even a small unit, i think takes away from the livability. those are tiny design tweaks. getting back to the six car spaces, there is room in the project to do it a little differently. again, i want to repeat to mr. gardner, i am not opposing the adaptive reuse of your project. i support it strongly. i just think it could be done better. i am looking for a better design, better designed units. commissioner borden: you have made some suggestions. on the last project, for example, we moved the bedrooms on the corner. we swapped the bedroom and living room. are the suggestions you could make here? i am trying to figure out -- i

do not think the process is working. the only way to make it work better is if you have actual suggestions and made some with a bicycle parking and the car parking, but maybe with the actual unit designed in? i think it would be helpful. commissioner moore: i do not think that is why i am sitting here. i am pointing of possible areas of improvement. i would like for the commission to be aware of the possibilities. there are some very obvious different ways of doing it. i am not here to spell that out. i'm not comfortable with the internal position. commissioner antonini: i would like to ask the project sponsor if you would be amenable, there seem to be some concerns here about the design of some of these units. could we, perhaps, not

necessarily speaking for commissioner moore, but it would seem like you might have to reduce your unit account to a little bit less or if you keep the same unit account, redesign the units to accommodate the a efficiencies that she is speaking about. >> that you for raising those issues. i think they are worthwhile to think about. i would like to reiterate the bigger picture that we are trying to do is deal with the number one problem of the city, which is the problem of affordable housing. there is very little of it. the only way you can really do it is to find property that is -- that does not have high cost basis, which you can do on stevenson st.. to put in a dense building with smaller units that makes them more affordable. that is the big picture. we are trying to provide work

force housing that is close to the downtown working centers and the financial district, the civic center. people could walk or bike to either of those. this is a very transit-oriented building. the six parking spaces that are shown in the plans are pre- existing. maybe they could be redesigned or the design could be improved. what i like to propose, rather than trying to figure out all of the little details of the design, is that we would be happy to continue to work with the department to take into account all of the comments from commissioner moore. president olague: there is a motion on the floor to deny the project. >> thank you. i appreciate it. i understand what you are saying, but i am inclined to propose a motion of continuous to take precedent to work this out. i know it has been continued once, but it would seem as though the changes are a little

bit too much to be able to work them out today. i would ask a motion to continue for one month. and if we have a date. president olague: it would have to be in december. november calendars are pretty full. let me check your. we have an advanced calendar here somewhere. what i will second the motion. -- commissioner borden: i will second the motion. >> following on commissioner moore's comments on the parking, we did follow up to see if the scheme they have here would work. they said it is not preferable. the space could be deleted.

it could be deleted and freed up. maybe they could relocate bicycle parking their and other ways of streamlining the pattern. president olague: commissioner sugaya raised the issue of exposure. i think quality of life, like there, those are critical issues that i would be concerned about. i definitely want to advocate for affordable housing, but the quality of that -- at a minimum, there should be some light, some air to all of the units. that is reasonable. if people are forced, due to the limited income, and their desire to live near their work, possibly in the mid-market area, that seems to be a good fit for this, then i do not think, out of desperation or necessity, they should be forced into a situation that does not have at least certain things.

you have been here so many years. i have seen you over the years. i think you can figure it out. commissioner moore: i am in support of what commissioner antonini's motion, particularly in the ways that he posed a challenge. i said earlier and i will say it again, i am not opposed to the building. i am seriously opposing the challenge to the developer, to the designer. to make it better. it will vice president miguel: this will be affordable based on design.