not put a kitchen in this big structure in the front. it just doesn't make sense to us. so, that's one point. i don't understand the building being in compliance. i suppose that means it's an accessory building. it fits that specification. it seems odd to me. we didn't pursue the demolition after mr. crock decided it was not feasible financially. we didn't push that. there's -- if there is a remodel of the existing proposed, we haven't seen any plans for that. i don't know if any permit has been or application has been made for that. we haven't seen it, or any notifications to the neighbors of any plans. so, we don't know what's going to go on with the existing building. that's it. >> okay. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. i would like to address the concern about the relocation of the kitchen. initially in my original plan when i sent out the neighborhood notification, i did have the kitchen relocated in the front building. but later as i progressed through the progress, i have found out that if i do relocate the kitchen from the existing building in the rear to the building in the front, i would need to file a loss of dwelling unit application which is similar to a demolition application process. and that would have to require me to do the similar requirements of the demolition. so, given the difficult requirement to do that, i have moved the kitchen back to the existing rear building and that's why i have changed the plan and that's why the plan is as it is as proposed. thank you. >> thank you. okay, public hearing is closed and opening up to commissioners. commissioner moore. >> mr. smith, would you perhaps help us explain the issue about the kitchen? i've never been asked to consider a building in approval of family housing which happens to lack a kitchen. and since eating is an essential part of how we live, it should most likely occur within the same envelope we do everything else, particularly since the dwelling unit is now the primary place for the larger number of family members to live. i'd like to get some guidance relative to the last statement the applicant made, that he would have to go through a dwelling unit declassification [speaker not understood]. >> the project owner, sponsor is correct. the project went out for notification, had the new kitchen in the new building. i was -- i was subsequently advised that that constitutes the dwelling unit removal. i'm the zoning administrator so therefore the kitchen had to remain in the building at the back of the lot in the existing building. so, this is kind of a situation where kind of like maybe the process has gotten in the way a little bit. >> well, if that is the case, then i would assume in order to really meet the need of the family and i'm fully sensitive to the requirements of generational multi-co-living, et cetera, i think this commission, particularly given what we have in front of us here, this very undersized small building in the rear yard would be a demolition issue, and we would move forward with approving the appropriate building for the needs of the family. at this moment i really cannot at all support something which would indeed invite just by necessity, invite to have two placeses of cooking, particularly when the layout of the space leaves clearly where the kitchen needs to be backed up against the utility and all you have to do is hook into that and you've got your kitchen. i just cannot in good conscience do that. we have spent a lot of time with other units where we had a situation where a garage and a build out basement had people do certain kinds of things in order to foreclose that there is a second unit in the property. so, i cannot really move forward with this, but encourage the different kind of application as many developed to deliver a building on this lot. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'm not clear on the issue of the loss of a unit because you really end up with the same number of units. if the kitchen is the requirement of there being a unit, you still have one unit with a kitchen in it. it would be the new unit. and then the cottage would be accessory. >> it's more dwelling unit removal, not loss of a dwelling unit. >> well, i don't really -- it's a relocation. we have a lot of situations where we might have a merger and they merge the units and they take the kitchen out, but this is not what we're doing here. we're just redistributing it to another place. i mean, that's kind of my -- i don't know. i understand it's a difficult situation. but the logical thing is to put the kitchen where most of the family is going to be most of the time. and, you know, then the smaller number of occupants would proceed from the cottage to the kitchen when it was dinner time. bring everyone, all those children into the back cottage to have dinner. so, it seems kind of backwards. >> commissioner wu. >> well, is there a world in which we can -- [laughter] >> where we can say it doesn't trigger mandatory dr, we are we can circumvent the fact -- >> yes, we can just make a finding. >> well, i think [speaker not understood], i'm not sure. without scott here, i'm not sure. what i would suggest maybe it sounds like you're supportive of the project if the kitchen is in the front. >> yes. so, maybe make a finding that you would prefer that solution and ask staff to -- and ask the za to look for a solution that allows that to happen. ~ because the way the current situation -- we have been advised on the current situation the removal of the kitchen in the rear unit constitutes a demolition and therefore a mandatory dr which means coming back to you for another dr. so, obviously everyone wants to avoid that. so, if there is -- so, maybe you could take dr, ask that the kitchen be moved to the front and ask us to figure out a solution to make that happen. >> this particular finding would be associated with the mandatory dr that we would have to evaluate and that's what would trigger that process. >> can i ask the project sponsor what he thinks about that possibility? if i were given or allow today relocate the kitchen to the front building without going through the expensive process of doing the neighborhood notification, loss of dwelling unit and all the other requirements needed for that, i would be willing to do that. and from my discussion with the rear neighbor, they were supportive of my project if the kitchen was located in the front building. >> among the possibility -- a required change in the plan, but would require the two -- excuse me, the plate, is that the two buildings were connected. i mean, i don't know if that's the possibility. it would require some change in plans and some physical enclosed space connecting the two. it would require a variance. that's another hearing, but it's not a dr. >> i would rather -- i make a motion to take dr and i think instruct the zoning administrator to find a way so that the project sponsor can move the kitchen to the front building without mandatory dr, without it being considered the loss of a -- what was it, the loss of a dwelling unit removal. >> second. [multiple voices] >> wait. >> one second. >> can i make a suggestion that maybe you take a motion of intent to allow findings to come back to you that may satisfy the mandatory discretionary review findings? >> yes. >> that way the action you take will be a discretionary review and you will be adopting findings that are specific to a mandatory -- [multiple voices] >> we'd have to have another hearing. the matter could be placed under consent to adopt the findings of the dr action. >> the public hearing is closed. >> okay, thank you. ~ for the suggestion. i believe that is a motion of intent to take dr given the circumstances i outlined earlier. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> mr. hillis, did you want to -- >> no, i'm done. >> okay. i just wanted to add to the motion -- not add to the motion, but i think that the commission's feeling is that there really isn't a dwelling unit removal in the sense that there is still going to be a dwelling unit. there is going to be the smaller cottage in the back and there is going to be a brand-new building in the front and in essence i think you can say that there is no removal. we're just moving one component of the cottage to the new building in the front. and, so, i think the technicality of the way the legal language may be written doesn't apply in this case because it's a special situation. and we really aren't removing a dwelling unit per se. so, if the za can get his mind around that, then i think that's the intent of the commission. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask staff perhaps to also work a little with the applicant as you are now figuring out exactly how to package it. instead of putting on these plans that there will be a subsequent permit for the cottage, i would like to have the department give the applicant a little bit more guidance of one, the removal of the kitchen requires, but also when remodeling, this does not all of a sudden become a foreign object, but that it follows your guidance in terms of what he can and can't do. it is really important because the way it's currently drawn, and that's why i called you, is we have a thing there where no plans shown, we'll have a future kind of [speaker not understood] application for improvements, but we are not dealing about two houses in this kind of zoning district. that's where my concern come in. i i'd like to see a little bit more guidance at least in kind for them so there is no future disasters. >> commissioners, i'm sorry, i didn't catch who seconded that motion. >> i did. >> commissioner antonini, thank you. so, commissioners, on the motion of intent to take dr and approve the project with the kitchen being moved to the front of the building and continued to next week or -- >> it would have to be two weeks. >> which would have to be april 4th because the 28th is -- >> continued to april 4th to adopt findings that would satisfy the criteria for dwelling unit removal. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? i'm sorry. commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i just want to clarify the public hearing is closed? >> yes. >> aye. >> well, it will be an agendized item. we have to take public comment if someone chooses, but we'll be placing it under consent. >> we'll change that in the rules. >> i don't think you can unless you can change the sunshine ordinance. >> the board of appeals does president do that. >> that was aye, commissioner sugaya? thank you. commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment this evening? if not, commissioner moore, you had -- >> the dr applicant was trying to add a comment when i talked about the rear cottage. they had an agreement [speaker not understood]. perhaps that could be communicated to mr. smith so that it is indeed properly put to record. >> okay. >> thank you. >> seeing no public comment, the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned] >> what if you could make a memorial that is more about information and you are never fixed and it can go wherever it wants to go? everyone who has donated to it could use it, host it, share it. >> for quite a great deal of team she was hired in 2005, she struggled with finding the correct and appropriate visual expression. >> it was a bench at one point. it was a darkened room at another point. but the theme always was a theme of how do we call people's attention to the issue of speci species extinction. >> many exhibits do make long detailed explanations about species decline and biology of birds and that is very useful for lots of purposes. but i think it is also important to try to pull at the strings inside people. >> missing is not just about specific extinct or endangered species. it is about absence and a more fundamental level of not knowing what we are losing and we need to link species loss to habitat loss and really focuses much on the habitat. >> of course the overall mission of the academy has to do with two really fundamental and important questions. one of which is the nature of life. how did we get here? the second is the challenge of sustainability. if we are here how are we going to find a way to stay? these questions resonated very strongly with maya. >> on average a species disappears every 20 minutes. this is the only media work that i have done. i might never do another one because i'm not a media artist per se but i have used the medium because it seemed to be the one that could allow me to convey the sounds and images here. memorials to me are different from artworks. they are artistic, but memorials have a function. >> it is a beautiful scupltural objective made with bronze and lined with red wood from water tanks in clear lake. that is the scupltural form that gives expression to maya's project. if you think about a cone or a bull horn, they are used to get the attention of the crowd, often to communicate an important message. this project has a very important message and it is about our earth and what we are losing and what we are missing and what we don't even know is gone. >> so, what is missing is starting with an idea of loss, but in a funny way the shape of this cone is, whether you want to call it like the r.c.a. victor dog, it is listen to the earth and what if we could create a portal that could look at the past, the present and the future? >> you can change what is then missing by changing the software, by changing what is projected and missing. so, missing isn't a static installation. it is an installation that is going to grow and change over time. and she has worked to bring all of this information together from laboratory after laboratory including, fortunately, our great fwroup of researche e-- g researchers at the california academy. >> this couldn't have been more site specific to this place and we think just visually in terms of its scupltural form it really holds its own against the architectural largest and grandeur of the building. it is an unusual compelling object. we think it will draw people out on the terrace, they will see the big cone and say what is that. then as they approach the cone tell hear these very unusual sounds that were obtained from the cornell orinthology lab. >> we have the largest recording of birds, mammals, frogs and insects and a huge library of videos. so this is an absolutely perfect opportunity for us to team up with a world renown, very creative inspirational artist and put the sounds and sights of the animals that we study into a brand-new context, a context that really allows people to appreciate an esthetic way of the idea that we might live in the world without these sounds or sites. >> in the scientific realm it is shifting baselines. we get used to less and less, diminished expectations of what it was. >> when i came along lobsters six feet long and oysters 12 inches within they days all the oyster beds in new york, manhattan, the harbor would clean the water. so, just getting people to wake up to what was just literally there 200 years ago, 150 years ago. you see the object and say what is that. you come out and hear these intriguing sounds, sounds like i have never heard in my life. and then you step closer and you almost have a very intimate experience. >> we could link to different institutions around the globe, maybe one per continent, maybe two or three in this country, then once they are all networked, they begin to communicate with one another and share information. in 2010 the website will launch, but it will be what you would call an informational website and then we are going to try to, by 2011, invite people to add a memory. so in a funny way the member rely grows and there is something organic about how this memorial begins to have legs so to speak. so we don't know quite where it will go but i promise to keep on it 10 years. my goal is to raise awareness and then either protect forests from being cut down or reforest in ways that promote biodiversity. >> biodiverse city often argued to be important for the world's human populations because all of the medicinal plants and uses that we can put to it and fiber that it gives us and food that it gives us. while these are vital and important and worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars, the part that we also have to be able to communicate is the more spiritual sense of how important it is that we get to live side by side with all of these forms that have three billion years of history behind them and how tragic it would be not commercially and not in a utilitarian way but an emotio l emotional, psychological, spiritual way if we watch them one by one disappear. >> this is sort of a merger between art and science and advocacy in a funny way getting people to wake unand realize what is going on -- wake up and realize what is going on. so it is a memborial trying to get us to interpret history and look to the past. they have always been about lacking at the past so we proceed forward and maybe don't commit the same mistakes.