i understand commissoner moore 's concern. for me, since this letter is fairly meaningless -- i mean, not to be mean. it really does not have teeth. i feel like there are other spirits of the conversation we want to recognize, but at the end of the day, i do not know if we want to spend a lot of time developing it, because at the end of the day, that is more paper someone is going to throw by. -- throw by. we should recommend staff have new points in a future letter that we should review in a future meeting. i do not think we are any closer to closure on the points. we would point out what specific issues we want to address in a new letter. that would make sense. i do not think we will be able to draft a letter collectively as a group. that is my thing. if this letter work importance because it were a response in a court case, then i would feel a lot differently than i do about it. commissioner sugaya: vote on the motion to continue. >> commissioners, on the motion to continue, would there be a specific date? commissioner suga

commissoner moore: did you write the document here in front of us? who is the main writer of this document? >> it was a joint effort of the office of economic development and the city attorney's office. commissoner moore: all three agencies need to respond because they receive the letter? >> yes. commissoner moore: why did they spend -- why did they spend time waiting for us? i asked

commissoner moore: we are just making room. so if you had smart cars, you would be able to pencil them in there? >> commissioners, on the motion to approve -- [roll call vote] so moved. commissioners, the motion passes unanimously, a 5-0. >> on the matter of the zoning requirements, i would be inclined to grant be requirements with the note that it is approximately a small area, and also they have a larger than normal requirement due to the nature of the adjacent properties. the adjacent properties also of fairly large lot coverage as well. so they are 15 feet. and finally, if anyone would like to appeal this decision, please give your contact in formation -- information to the staff planner. >> commissioners, that will place us on item 12, 197 ladley street. a request for discretionary review. this is an abbreviated analysis. >> staff won't start. i will call you up in a minute. >> having a little problem with the microphone there. good evening, commissioners. the proposal is for a 3-story single-family residence on a coral pa

commissioner antonini: i disagree with commissoner moore. i think this is fine.sponse by the planning department on behalf of the commission is, of course, very opprobrious. what we always do when appeals and made to the board of supervisors or when action has to take place, there the department talks to the commission. this is sort of the same thing. we are one in the same on this type of thing. while it is a legal requirement we make a response to the grand jury, i think this issue is behind us now. as long as their response is appropriate and accurate, i do not think we need to spend more time on it. i would move to approve the draft. >> i would second that. >>commissioner borden: i would like to make a friendly amendment to that then. i do not have an issue with the findings. i would like to change or add the text in the third paragraph down were in talks to the response. the hearing, blah, blah, blah. long-term projections, etc. in that paragraph, i would like to make the statement, you know, all commissioners know, all commissioners expressed concern about