>> as well as the stepped increases? >> we have an one under operation and you can add it there. >> ok, great. you mean, i would support this with those changes being made. >> commissioner fung? >> i have a question for project sponsor. what is the demographic break-down of the population? >> sorry, this is a little bit off the top of my head, but we did a publication for our high school enrollment and i think we have people declare themselves how they want to be counted or whether they could consider themselves people of colour and

i believe that statistics and i'll check with robin, over 43%. 43% at stewart hall. and i think 40% at convent high school and then, i don't have specifics but it's in the mid20% at the elementary. >> that's total. >> percentage? >> the percentage relates to total students of colour? >> yes. >> commissiocommissioner moore? >> thank you. this made the school not just a document but real as part of this community, including the importance of the people it shapes. i'm in strong support and make a motion that we approve this condition together with a modification of the meeting at

an enrollment cap of 1,000 is reached. >> second. >> commissioner moore, could you please repeat the amended part of the motion, the amended commissions? could you repeat them, please. >> that we encourage to make part of the motion a special meeting when the enrollment cap of 1,000 students is being reached. >> thank you. on that motion, then, commissioners, to approve this matter with conditions as have been amended and read into the record, commissioner fung. >> aye. commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> so moved and that passes 5-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 8, 2018, conditional

use authorization. >> good afternoon. the auto before you i item befoe downtown residential zoning district, to code 303 and 827.37 to convert a portion of the existing accessory parking garage for the residential units to an automobile parking garage community commercial use for a total of 30 parks spaces. currently, the project site contains a residential building with 448 dwelling units and 251 accessory off-street parking districts. the information provided by the project sponsor, the sub terrain-in garage has an used balance of 50 spaces or 30 spaces, including a buffer of 20

spaces for fluctuating resident demands. the project to propose the accessory parking spaces to a paid public parking garage for 30 spaces. thito date, the department has received three public correspondents expressing concerns about the security controls, the increased traffic control and 50 of the pedestrians, particularly to the less-abled pedestrians. according to the transportation study, the project will not result in a significant transportation-related impact as the suit is developed with an existing parking garage and the implementation of the project will marginally increase the number of vehicles traveling to and from the site. and in summary, this is on balance consistent with the

requirement of the planning code and objectives and policies of the general plan. the project converts the accessory parking space into paid public parking spaces. that's providing parking for patrons of the nearby establishments without adding additional development to the city. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not be detrimental to the adjacent properties. the project sponsor prepared a presentation and that includes a presentation and available for questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissionerrerings. i'm megan jennings and i'm here on behalf of the project sponsor, 399 fremont, llc.

tiffany is here, as well as jeff spicer from the parking management company, pcu. as your staff designed the residential building at 399 free monfreemont and a portion is sitting empty everyday. because of the configuration of the garage and the fact that it of course tends underground, it really isn't feasible to convert in unused space to, for example, residential uses or any other active uses. for reference, udr is proposing to convert a portion of the parking garage at another one of its buildings, directly adjacent to this one throug to add to thg garage area but that's not feasible here. so the sponsor would like to put this garage to better use by making about 30 spaces available

to the public and relieving some of the unmet demand for parking in the hill neighborhood. the planning commission has previously approved similar non-accessory parking uses for udr's buildings at 388 beil, and the sponsor worked with pdi to oversee the operations, manage reservations, collect revenue and ensure tax payments are made to the city and they propose for the past successful relationship with p ci, as well this impacts safety which is critical, as well.

the building currently has modern security features, including a camera in the garage and 24/7 concierge staff on site. the resident floors are not ??? by anyone withouand they are loy features to the garage to secure the doors from the garage into the building. although, they need to make sure that any changes to those doors will comply with fire and safety requirements. similarly with respect to pedestrian safety, the proposal here is to use a recently constructed facility in accordance with the uses it was

constructed for. while the sponsor does not believe there are existing safety features or safety features that require addressing, they are looking into options to add additional notification for pedestrians on the street when the gate is being open and closed. in short, we believe this is a sensible reuse of constraint space in an existing facility and the staff report demonstrates that the findings for the conditional use can be met. so we respectfully ask the commission for approval today. thank you. >> worri just wanted to get your pulse on how this building has been doing. i heard you say that it was the

total spots in the 200s? >> 251. >> how many of those were used, typically? >> on a daily basis, about 200 are occupied, so 50 are empty. >> as it is today existing, are there any electric vehicle charters? >> there are.

the propose is for advanced reservation, so the flow into the garage is secured and controlled in that way. once individuals are within the garage, there is not a physical separation other than ramps in between the proposed public parking area and the resident-only parking area.

it's access into the residential spaces. >> i think under the circumstance and the fact that the applicant has a track record of running similar programmes in other buildings that had any other issues, they didn't think it was necessarily warranted to install an additional security gate. it's also my understanding that just given the way the garage is configured, it would be challenging, because there isn't a clear point where would be place to install another interior gate. (please stand by).

i would be hesitant to see all vacant spaces previously assigned to residential uses now being converted to commercial spaces when we are really under the mandate to decongest downtown, making downtown more transit and pedestrian-friendly, and getting away from cars. as these spaces become commercial spaces, we are we inviting people to drive to downtown and park their car for commercial use rather than for those with which these spaces were originally intended. i think it would be a step backward to a more car free, less congested downtown. i just want to throw that out. the director his is not here today, but i see mr. rogers over there putting it on your to do list to look at this as a trend

and how do we address the chan -- trend as we move forward. there has always been a request for newer buildings for applicants to consider the possible conversion of how below greater at grade parking can be adapted to other uses over time. i'm not sure when this building was built, but i would like us to dig deeper and not just to do parking to parking. this is not a comment against your project, but a comment by which, we as planning commissioners, need to look into the future and be creative about adaptive reuse of parking other than car oriented uses. thank you. >> commissioner hillis? >> i would fully support commissioner moore's comments on this. we're definitely seeing this trend and i believe we will see it even stronger as we move to the future.

ideally this would be housing. we are seeing it even with 80 used -- a.d.u.s in some of the neighborhoods. i think it is a great idea to look at this broadly and encourage housing where we can get it. i moved to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore? >> to take this further, thank you for your support. what we would also need to look at is where is line or space possible because the report speaks about activating straight friends through greening and active uses. this particular garage, which is simply a garage would continue to be one. it is not really a visual transformative adaptation here, but we should think about that as well as we move forward. >> if there was nothing further, there was a is a kept motion

that has been seconded with conditions. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. that will place us on your discretionary review calendar for item nine. discretionary review. note on june 6, 2019, after hearing and closing public comment, we continue this matter to july 18th, 2019 i a vote of 5-0. in order to participate, those absent will have to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> i have. >> i have. >> thank you. >> subsequently on july 18th and august 29th of this year, you continued the matter without a hearing. >> good afternoon.

a staff architect. as jonas just mentioned, we initiated request for discretionary review of the building permits to construct a third story vertical addition to existing two story, two family house that was previously heard on june 6th. at that hearing, your deliberations focused on the following issues for the project sponsor to continue to explore and address one, the privacy issues at the rear south façade, second, some study -- sun study with respect to the properties at the rear, and three, the possibility proposed by the project sponsor of adding an accessory dwelling unit. all of which they have done. staff's recommendation was that the situation does not represent any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with issues brought forth by the d.r. requester.

thank you. >> can we hear from the d.r. requester? >> there are copies of my submission. is that the time allotment here correct? >> you will have three minutes. >> thank you. commissioners, my name is james. i live at 49 steward street, unit one. i am one of the d.r. requester his. the project architect wants you to believe the project complies with the residential design

guidelines. but here is a comparison of what the guidelines say and what seward street reveals. the example given in the guidelines might as well be our exact block because 50 seward street as part of a row of six identical homes. this project will destroy that and set a terrible precedent. complete the mirroring the illustration on page nine of the guidelines, the block revival style homes has a strong visual character. how does allowing this project respect the integrity or the spirit of the guidelines, which are meant to preserve the city we all love? it states that the subject block is characterized by two mediterranean two story revival style homes just like the subject style property. she goes on to say half of the homes on the block were constructed in either 1928 or 1929 and show the same general massing and appearance of the subject property.

she further points out that these homes, including the subject property, all have double canted bay windows at the second floor level, surmounted by a red tile element, which exhibit a concentration of buildings historically and statically united by plan and physical development. the plans you are considering today would result in a home that objectively dishonour -- defies the guidelines and destroys the block face visual character. furthermore, at the last hearing , the architect quoted his sun -- son's study and claimed my property would only lose a small amount of sun. however, the sun study done at the interim of this commission shows the project results in new shadowing on my residents of at least one hour and ten minutes, which amounts to a loss of approximately half of my total direct light. my partner and i keep the heat off and allow our home to naturally warm up in the morning in an environmentally hent -- friendly way. we also redirect sunlight from our front garden. the impact of the proposed project shadow effect on our residence is substantial.

the plans include an additional story. the desire to amass an absurd amount of additional square footage doesn't justify seizing a valuable resource such as light from neighbors living within their footprint. i am not opposed to my neighbors improving their home, but the owner's project is costly in a zero-sum game and they run afoul of the guidelines and an un- ignorable way. the project does not enhance or conserve neighborhood character and does not balance the right to develop the property with the impacts on nearby properties. i believe the planning department has not provided sufficient consideration of these facts and that discretionary review should be granted. thank you. >> are you part of the d.r. requester? >> yes. >> you have three minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. i will be speaking on behalf of

myself and my husband. we reside at 49 steward street across the street from 50 seward we would like to make it clear we do not oppose renovation, we oppose the scale and a sign of the proposed building and its impact to our neighborhood. fifty seward is already a large building, it is 3400 square feet it has a nonconforming narrow rear setback. the proposed plans at approximately 1800 square feet by moving the front of the building 10 feet closer to our building, adding a fifth story, and switching the garage to the garage. the plans are extensive. however, the owners do not want to demolish the building because a new construction would need a proper rear setback and that would cause the building footprint to become smaller than it is now. the owners claim they need to enlarge the building to get three bedrooms on one floor for the safety of their family and to request store a second unit, yet the adjacent sister building

is currently undergoing a gut renovation and has achieved those exact same features within the envelope of the existing building. our neighbors who own 54 seward is here today to describe his renovation during public commentary. the owners claim the building must be expanded to meet the family's needs are without merit the plans also include a third unit, at 281 square foot a.d.u. that is the size of a hotel room it is hard to imagine that will be a desirable rental units. the idea of the a.d.u. did not come from the owners, it was introduced by the architect during the june 6th hearing. on the commissioners at that time were asking to reduce the living size -- living space size , he offered the a.d.u. as a shot from the hip idea. it is a strategy, frankly, to maintain the proposed square footage of the building while trying to appease the commissioners' concerns. we invite you to watch the recording if you doubt my assessment.

on the overhead here, some data. i believe the one true goal of these plans is to maximize the square footage of the building in order to maximize its value. there was a trend in our neighborhood of dramatically upsizing buildings for profit and it has been consuming our neighborhood and the data i show on the overhead, just in the last five years, we have seen five homes on adjacent 19th street that were similarly developed into large luxury properties and flipped. allowing the proposed changes to 50 seward will be a turning point. it will put the character of our charming street at risk. sixteen of the 34 buildings have the same style as 50 seward. if it is allowed to be demolished and turned into a giant luxury building, the commission will be setting a precedent to allow future developers to consume the rest of our neighborhood. thank you. >> is there anyone here in support of the d.r. requester

his? third and final d.r. requester. >> thank you so much. i also have materials for the commissioners. and live at 64 seward street and i'm speaking on behalf of myself and my husband. i will just focus on key concerns, but i think there were a number of items in need to be addressed with this project. the proposed changes are extreme and extraordinary and if approved would increase a property to one that is over 5,000 square feet with eight bedrooms and one parking spot. there are 15 letters of objection to this project from neighbors on record, and neighbors have every right to be concerned. to start, and james mentioned this, the san francisco residential guidelines are very clear. they state proposed projects must respect the existing pattern of building entities. from this picture, the building entities four seward street for

all six homes, and the entrances are consistently located on the left-hand side. the proposed design is incompatible with this, is a failure to design this would be blatant disregard. why do the sponsors want to switch the entryway? first it was because they said their car bottomed out. there is no evidence of this in terms of markets on the concrete or the garage. after that was pointed out, they said, it could be because the driveway is unsafe. again, this driveway has been in use for 90 years and there's no record of any injury on seward street. there is no hardship involved for the sponsors and keeping the entryway on the current side and consistent with the drg. the next point is something in which i am no expert, but it is regarding to the front setback. the design uses the alternative method for calculating the front setback pick this methodology

incorporates the front setback of the adjacent properties for 54 seward street shown on the left, it is 12 feet and 3 inches , and there is no front setback for others. and for the purpose of the point i want to make, all this -- all that is important as 54 stewart -- seward street has a greater setback of the two adjacent properties. if you look here, on section 132 of the planning code, it states when using alternative my fridge -- method of averaging, all portions of the property must be directly exposed laterally to the setback of the adjacent building having the greater setback. that is not the case here. that would involve this part here. you have to walk through the garage to get to this side of peter's house. i'm no expert, i have asked for explanations. nothing has been provided. i think it is important a logical explanation is provided.

the third floor deck needs to be cut back 5 feet. >> thank you, your time is up. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, anyone here in support of the d.r. requester? you have one minute. >> my name is peter. my wife and i and our children on the premises at 54 seward street which is directly next-door. i want to show you on the rendering the back facing carson street. you see in the diagram where the red flags are, is the proposed monster property. we are under construction right now, in our property, same

footprint. we have not gone an inch higher or lower than the envelope of the property. we have four bedrooms on our top floor. we have a bedroom and a half down below that, and we will have a total of four bathrooms. we kept it all within the envelope, consistent with the neighborhood. this project is way out of whack you look at the home on the block, and it is totally. >> thank you. your time is up. >> thank you. >> anyone else in support of the d.r. requester his? >> this is another example of the ongoing a rampage to transform neighborhoods into

hotels, into air b. and b., and to flip more houses in san francisco, which this planning commission has been supporting. basically, neighborhoods like north beach have been turned into hotel districts. and we are setting the same thing up for other districts in san francisco. the neighborhoods are being destroyed in this is part of the whole development problem which this planning commission is representing. it needs to be opposed. these marauders who basically are speculators have to be driven out of san francisco. >> anyone else in support? seeing none, project sponsor? >> because there are multiple d.r. requester his, the project sponsor will have six minutes. >> thank you. i'm representing the project sponsor. i want to introduce kelly and kyle and their son right here and there sun -- son knocks

cannot be here because he was napping. we are here after three months. commissioners hillis and funk were missing from that and so i'm going to go over the project a little bit. commissioner richards, thank you for your support last time. the architect will go over the changes after me and will discuss the changes made after the request of the two commissioners who asked that certain things be considered. the existing building today has 2500 conditional square feet and is a single-family home. where our clients have been living since 2015. there will be two additional units added. first and a.d.u., and second, the restoration of a unit that the prior universe removed without authorization. despite the addition of 2,032

condition square feet, in order to add the two units, the height is only increasing from the current 20-foot 2 inches, 230 feet 3 inches. in order to accomplish this and add all that square footage, there are two things that have been done. one is converting existing basement storage space, and the end used street-level floorspace to conditioned space to be habitable. number two, excavating to create a two store unit whose light will be excellent as it will be entirely above the street-level of carson, which is below the entire building. besides allowing the children to sleep on the same floor as their parents and allowing kelly and kyle, if necessary, to bring them -- bring in their aging parents at a later time, this project really only adds a

modest amount, and it allows the family to stay in the neighborhood that they have been in since 2015. i did want to mention, by the way, that none of the d.r. requester his come from adjacent properties and none of the people who live next door in the multiunit building have testified against this project in any way regarding privacy or light. finally, this project accomplishes several benefits to the city. first of all, it restores units that was previously removed by a prior owner without authorization. second, it adds an a.d.u. unit.

this a.d.u. project unit will be subject to rent control, will be forbidden from air b. and b. type platforms, and can never be sold as a condominium. john? >> good afternoon, commissioners at the last hearing, there was a discussion that the social space was too large, and due to this comment, we added a street-level a.d.u. and reduced the social space. adding in a.d.u. to the existing space requires a waiver from the d.a. if more than 25% of that space is taken. in our case, the d.a. waved was willing to waive enough space to create a 281 square-foot studio a.d.u., but not enough to create a one bedroom that we were originally wanting that would be more desirable and more rentable and comfortable from a tenant's perspective. we did reduce a social space by converting the family room on the second floor from the street

, that is, into an office for kyle who has now changed jobs and is working at his home full-time. but the social space being reduced to just a kitchen, dining room, and living room. the original proposal included windows that provided light for the a.d.u. and a lower second unit and due to commissioner moore's concerns, we did and up removing the two windows in the johnson's top unit but did keep the windows at the kitchen and bedrooms because they face onto the blank wall of the adjacent neighbor and impose no privacy concerns. at the a.d.u., we wanted to keep that window so we made it smaller and we raised it to eye level, and also added a permanent privacy screens to the tenant will be able to at least get some southern light to the terrace we are providing for the required outer space. and at the lower two bedroom unit, we kept the window because it has no effect on privacy as it is wonderful floor below the neighbors' living space. we hope that is acceptable to

you. we met with the d.r. requester his in august and had a thorough discussion on the sun study. the upper unit is that, at the worst case is having 20 minutes of shadowing that ends at 6:00 a.m. in the morning and 40 minutes of shadowing to the lower unit. we understand he disagrees with our analysis and therefore we have done a much more extensive sun exposure analysis that we were not able to share -- we we are going to share with you if you are interested, please ask me about that. for carson street, there is no additional shadowing. there will be increased sunlight to the neighbors below. therefore we ask you to take d.r. and approve the project as we submitted. i'm happy to answer questions if you have any. thank you. >> is there any member of the

public in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, since this is our multiple times hearing this, we will not have rebuttals. commissioners? >> question for the project sponsor. if the d.a. does not grant a waiver on the size of that a.d.u. unit, what is the recourse? >> the d.a. did confirm that he is going to grant the specific square footage of the waiver for the studio a.d.u. and it was reviewed by planning staff. we were trying to, or asking him to waive further square footage

for this, especially since the second unit is not really defined in this project, and we were hoping to get the additional bedrooms so it could be part. >> that is my question. you are saying that you would have preferred a one-bedroom versus the studio, and i'm asking you, what recourse you have against the d.a.'s determination. >> so if we don't get the second waiver from the d.a., we will have, as i indicated, the a.d.u. of only 281 square feet. we feel a tenant would want more , even a studio should be more, but we would prefer a two bedroom. >> my question is what is the recourse? >> the recourse would be that we would have to appeal your

determination or we would have to ask the d.a. for a letter of determination that might result in a second waiver, but i ask you to ask the d.a. himself because this is unusual. i haven't been involved in it as regards to the recourse if we only get one waiver, and not the other. i'm only speculating. >> i could add, there was a communication from the planner through conversation with the d.a., that the quick definition of what is allowed for waiver is that it says something about it being, unless the area produced is not usable, and it doesn't allow for preferable. it also doesn't recognize the fact that we are in an unusual situation where we don't have a

unit that we are quote taking space away from and creating a two bedroom unit down below. it is actually the two bedroom unit that is growing in its restoration. >> understood. question for staff on similar issues... can you provide me with a little bit of a background as to the genesis of this requirement? >> if i can have the monitor, please? so the planning code, as far as it reads for accessory dwelling units in an existing multifamily dwelling says that restrictions on construction, that -- let's

see, that a dwelling unit may expand into habitable space on the ground floor or basement floors provided that it does not exceed 25% of the gross for -- square footage. the zoning administrator may waive the 25% limitation if the resulting space would not be usable, nor would it be impractical for use of other purposes, including, not including two storage, bicycle parking. waving this limitation would help relieve the negative layout issues for that a.d.u. so the existing legal use of this building is two dwelling units. there is no legal history. there is no permits on file which show the legal layout of the building, but i believe that on this ground floor here, that

the beginning of the dwelling unit was this location here. and in order for an a.d.u. to be inhabited, this ground floor, it cannot exceed more than 25%. i've reviewed this with the d.a. , and because of the determination of the planning code, there is no ability for him to waive more than which has been waived in order -- he did raise -- waive more than 25%, but to expand even further, there's no current reasoning. right now there's a limitation per the planning code. does that clarify the question? >> i'm sure, yes, it does. i'm sure that that particular

requirement must have come from this commission during its review of the a.d.u. legislation >> there's no previous example of an even further expansion than what has been allowed here. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> the size of the a.d.u., given what was just explained was, a something which is novelty to us i have a very hard time really understanding it because i'm not sure how my other commissioners feel, but a 281 square foot a.d.u. in a house of this size is not exactly what we had envisioned to be the result of our pushback, and i wish the zoning administrator would be here to really explain it to us,

including the exceptional nature of why it is calculated the way it is. i have one additional comments. i'm glad we are doing an a.d.u., also i am baffled about the calculations. the architect, please. on your upper floor, you are adding a balcony where you are taking a green planter, that the edge of the balcony, or deck sits on the property line, and you are putting a planter in. i think the planters probably about 5 feet. i would like to ask that you put the edge of the balcony on the r outbound. >> that's fine. we have the 5-foot planter, but you want -- >> i would like it up to the railing at the 5-foot line at the plantar outbound because if this is -- if we do not want

this balcony to sit on the property line, given that you have a very tight condition here , i would prefer to see the balcony edge at 5-foot inbound. >> would it be fine still to have the guard rail also encapsulate the plantar? we are concerned about of some but he maintains that planter, they could fall. it could cause a safety problem. so for a fire and building code issue, i would suggest that we would still also be able to continue that railing at the parapet height of 42 inches. >> i would ask the department to look at that. normally we have not done that. i hear your safety concern, with that comes with the territory even when people maintain debtors at home, you're not providing an outbound railing to properly do that. i think you can care for a planter from the railing being at the 5-foot line. i do not think that it adds anything. i would really prefer the edge of the building to hold back as

it faces the neighboring property. >> okay. >> commissioner hillis? >> mr. lum, just a couple of questions for you. can you go over the square footage for us? there has been a lot of discussion on that, just what the existing square footage is and the square footage of each of the units. >> yes, quan is getting the front cover here. and i can give some insight into why the a.d.u. law was written the way it was. i believe that the goal was to not reduce any -- >> not taken existing square footage. >> yes, exactly. so in regards to unit number one , which is -- >> first of all, what is the

existing now? >> existing is 2500 square feet conditioned and then there is -- 969 square feet of unconditioned space. >> so about 3500 square feet. >> yes. >> at one point it was a two unit building. >> yes, actually, the johnsons bought it as disclosed, and also on the property information map, it was also stated that it was a single-family house. it was only until we actually submitted for the project that it was discovered during the planning process that in the d.r. report, there was a mention of a second unit. >> okay. can you tell by the existing layout of the home how big the second unit wasn't how large the second unit was compared?

>> it appears that it would be in the area directly behind the garage, and then there is one room, there's a staircase that goes down and there is one room. we don't have any -- find any records of that as being permitted work. it is really unclear what one would describe this. it was minimally a one-bedroom unit, but it certainly is not going to be the same size. our proposed second unit is much larger. >> okay. go ahead and talk what the square footage of the new unit. >> the new unit is 1200 square feet, i believe. let me get this one. yes, is 1,199 square feet. >> okay. and the top two floors or how big? >> one moment. >> it is about 2800 square feet.

>> what is the 815 unconditioned space? >> that is the garage and storage. >> okay. and the 989 unconditioned before is that, also? >> that is proposed. >> and the proposed a.d.u. is 281 square feet. and can you show the entries to these various units? you kind of wedged the a.d.u. -- i think it is causing problems. i typically like them, but -- >> we are going to show this on the ipad because it also shows the calculations, but we left the main entrance here and then we have two entrances, one on the left that allows you to have access likely there is an additional space here on this lot which is unusual. is 28 feet wide, so we can actually run an outdoor -- it is a breezeway that is covered that allows access to go down the stairs to get to the lower two

bedroom units, and also allows you exterior completely independent of this entry access into the a.d.u. and our hopes originally was to include this whole space here as a one-bedroom a.d.u. >> what would you do with the ground floor? the lower level? >> it is two floors down, so it is technically the basement. >> normally we ask for an a.d.u. we think on this case, especially with the rules, it is causing some issues. i would almost prefer to have two relatively significantly sized units.

-- almost like a two flat situation checking out this a.d.u. i get the neighbors' concerns. the square footage of the resulting building is significantly larger, but i think the trade-off did that is if we can get it to larger sized units in this space. that is kind of my inclination on this. is one single-family home. i wouldn't be supportive normally, but i think the way you have broken it up into the units works. i don't quite get the a.d.u. >> commissioner fung? >> going back to the main issue here, is the size of the

building and its contractual relationship with the other buildings. i would have also preferred to have a little bit larger one-bedroom units there instead of a 281 square foot unit, but that is dependent upon the decision of the d.a. >> i am along the lines with commissioner hillis. i don't know if a very small a.d.u. is going to achieve the goals we are looking at, but then i also recognize we don't have a sony administrator here today and we are a couple commissioners short. commissioner moore? >> given the fact there is really no record of this building at a two unit building,

i would like to see an a.d.u., but under, interpreted under slightly different circumstances and the fact that the d.a. is not here to help us, with this being an exception to the normal course of how to determine the size of an a.d.u., i would like to have a step back and not take an action on this particular item today. i would like to see an a.d.u. because the units are quite well sized, and even if the a.d.u. would only go up to 380 or 400 square feet under a different interpretation, i would be very happy to see that, except we do not have the right people in place here today to even discuss in a manner that we understand. >> is that a motion? >> yes. that is a request for continuance until we have a full commission and a d.a. present to help us with this. >> second.

>> commissioner johnson? >> thank you. i just want to ask questions and clarify on that motion because i would agree with you. it would be useful to hear. i also here but if after hearing the explanation from the zoning administrator that there is a desire, we are concerned about the size of the a.d.u. and not really serving the purposes as an intent of this question and a question about whether two units would actually be an option for us to consider as well. i wonder if there is not, at this next discussion, putting forward what that would look like, as well. >> commissioner fung? >> i think staff is indicated that the zoning administrator has already made their decisions on the two waivers, granting one but not the other.

>> i also want to clarify this is not the only location that an a.d.u. can be within the building. the limitations are that 25% of the existing dwelling unit cannot be removed, and that the d.a. had reviewed the different possibilities, but this was the proposal of the project sponsor.

it is not allowed more than currently has been reviewed. but the waivers have not been completed. so and additional review with the finalization of the waivers would be after this hearing.

>> i am fine with a continuance. i think we're getting different direction because there's different commissioners here that weren't at that first hearing and it's unfortunate, but i apologize for missing the first hearing. i just think that the a.d.u., as it is configured, won't be used as an a.d.u. i don't see it being used. i would just suggest that we take it and incorporate it into the bottom unit, make a decent -sized bottom unit, a decent -sized top unit. i get the neighbors' concerns that this is larger than what they are used to seeing, but the trade-off would be two good sized units for the future. we are kind of getting to the allowable zoning which is r.h. two, but given the down sloping lot, i think it is odd. i don't think it will be legible as an a.d.u. here. >> commissioners, there is a

motion that has been seconded. >> i think that those commissioners who are not here today shared a certain size. there was a request to add an a.d.u. so that was the main direction. to just toss that because the a.d.u. is not quite it what it thought it would be is kind of like going counter to what i would recall the rest of the commissioners and what we are asking for. >> i absolutely agree with the intent of adding the a.d.u. i think just given the reality of whether that a.d.u. would be used or not used, and i would

agree that i suspect that it wouldn't be used. i think we have a important moment to try and make units that will ultimately benefit the folks that will move in there and make them comfortable. >> on the motion we could continue this matter on october 3rd... [roll call] that motion fails 2-3. is there an alternate motion? >> commissioner hillis? >> i think we are heading in the same direction, but i think the

o