understanding of dimensionablity. we cannot just basically take a little drawing here and approve it. that, at a minimum, this needs to be addressed and whatever time frame we are extending this to would require that the drawings are basically updated to that next level, aside from the community negotiations. so i move to continue and mr. clerk, wh sucre, what would you suggest? >> i think we would need a month to confer with the project sponsor and architect. >> i'm looking at the calendar, though. we are full up until march 15th. >> so maybe march -- [ inaudible ]

>> in regards to the design, i'd like to point out that this has been a four-year process, and that we worked diligently with the planning department to come up with this design. us and the design team, we worked very closely together. calle 24 and their group, we discussed some potential design changes, and all they came up with during their meeting is we should change the railings to iron railings that looked more spanish style, and that's been it. we've worked on the courtyards, all of the units have proper exposure. we're creating courtyards that are used by the tenants, that are landscaped, we have a roof deck, we have a landscaped rear yard. this is hardly a hotel. those units are designed with

the courtyard to get front and back exposure so you can have light coming in both directions. a lot of units don't provide that. >> commissioner melgar: okay. thank you very much. >> okay. >> commissioner melgar: i just wanted to remind you that this body is, ultimately -- >> we understand that. >> commissioner melgar: -- thanking you for coming, and the feedback, i think is the feedback for the staff as well. i think the director asked about specifically moving it to march, if that gives you enough time to come back after having incorporated our feedback. >> it depends on what we have to incorporate, but 30 days, we'll start with that, i guess. we were looking at two weeks. >> so maybe march 24, we might look at as a possibly date. >> march 22nd. >> i guess one question for the architect. are you clear on what the question was from commissioner moore? >> yeah.

we've ran into some of these conditions before. it turned out to everyone's satisfaction. >> i like that idea of the back yard. >> i think we'd be looking at march 22nd. >> yeah, correct. >> 22nd. >> okay. >> commissioner melgar: did somebody second the motion? >> we have a motion? >> commissioner moore: i made the motion and somebody second that. >> i will. >> okay. >> clerk: so commissioners, on that motion to continue this item to march 22nd -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved. this project is continued to march 22nd. all right. so moving along on your regular calendar -- >> commissioner moore: five minute break because there's

>> clerk: item number 14, including 655 montgomery, request for conditional use authorization as well as an associated variance. [ inaudible ] >> mr. perry, department staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to establish -- [ inaudible ] -- at the ground floor of the existing building at 655 montgomery street located within the c 30 downtown retail district. the space was last occupied by a restaurant by has been vacant since the restaurant's closure in 2013. t while the majority of the space would be converted to office use, the project would also retain 578 square feet fore retail use in that portion

closest to merchant street. in this way, the total overall number of leasable ground floor retail spaces would remain as currently exist at three. as described in the staff report there are a number of factors that reduce the viability of the subject space remaining fully as a retase use. this include its overall lack of district visible street frontage and the grade difference between the floor of the interior space and the nearest sidewalk. all this to say that the prospects for future retail tenancy are very low as evidenced by the project sponsors efforts over multiple years to lease it. the department has not received any public comment on this matter to date. one person has commented that while 655 montgomery does do a good job of lighting the public sidewalks there are others in the downtown and vicinity that

do not, and that whether there are retail tenants on the ground floor or not, the city and retail individual building owners should make efforts to make sure that adjacent sidewalks are well-lit for safety reasons. lastly in order to proceed, the project will require a raressance from section 123 or the maximum floor area ratio, far, of 18:1 that is allowed in the c 3 o district. this project was constructed just prior to the existing district. the prior ground floor retail space was exempt from the definition of gross floor area and thus not included in the calculation of far, however there is no such exemption for the converted office space, therefore, the project would be adding gross floor area and increasing the building's far from 18.8 to 18.9 as a as a result. a variance is necessary and if

granted this project would still be able to transfer and obtain development rights to the site. the department recommends -- [ inaudible ] . that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questioning. thank you. >> commissioner melgar: thank you very much. any public comment? oh, sorry. project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i'm ashley brake field on behalf of project sponsor. as mr. perry already stated, this is a requested permit, a portion of a small vacant and unleasable retail space in the mixed use montgomery washington tower to be converted in a building management office and shared tenant amenity space. this was a shared office use and that requires conditional use approval on the ground floor. this has been vacant for a

number of years by its undesirable on-site. it's partially below grade, there's really no visiblity from the street and lacks a lot of window. the only at grade portion of the site with street frontage is being maintained as a small retail use. with that, i'll introduce larry breaux who's the project sponsor to give you some more details. >> larry breaux from black creek group in denver, colorado. thank you for hearing our matter. can i get the computer pulled up onto the screen. hopefully you can see it like the last fellow's apologies for it being washed out.

just so everybody gets the orientation, top side is washington street, right is montgomery street. the part that's shaded gray or white, that's the entrance to the residential tower. which own the commercial portion which is the balance of the commercial store. it's three office suites, and the balance of the retail that's outlined in red and that's the subject space and really we're focusing today on the proposed change of use, the area in blue. i think commissioner richards, you had mentioned long-standing retail storefront, i'm guilty of one of those. march 31st, it's going to be five years the space is going to i vacant.

we bought the building in 2013. at that time, the space was vacant. there was a paul business on the east side that was going through struggles and changes, and ultimately failed. we really had a vision of not just elevating the retail tenancy of the project to what it once was but also tieing in the outside and the inside both from a design, from an aesthetic to really make it a cohesive feel. just to flip through a few pictures of the subject space, so this is the frontage of the merchant side. this is what's going to remain as the retail space, so that's the entrance immediately adjacent to the commercial lobby, and then, go ahead and go to the next one. and these are pictures inside the space.

right away, you can see some of the structural challenges that we have with being below the garage for the building. our garage is actually right above this space, and this is looking towards the west. that's the backside of the hilton, so it doesn't exactly get a ton of sun light. this is looking north to montgomery street, and it's about a 4 feet grade change between grade and the floor, and so really, this is the back portion of the space that we've had two different leasing brokers -- brokerage firms, excuse me, seven different agents and outreach tours to over 200 prospective different tenants over the last five years. it was first, let's find a restaurant, and we started to broaden the net, looking at fitness type uses, convenience store uses, furniture stores, art galleries, any type of use.

zero interesting in leasing the entire space. every sing of one of them said i can't make money on the back portion of the space. that's a very big contrast to the success that we had in the other retail spaces. this is from the corner of month good morning rea montgomery and washington. again, sorry for the washed out pictures, with you nice name brands, good quality structure that are offered to the public. good tenants in the building and really what's happened is there's life on the east side and northeast side of the building. my southeast side of the building, there's still a little bit of death, and that's why we're here to talk about the notion of aligning the large retail space where there's been proven demand because we've had folks that said hey, you know what?

i can do something with a smaller portion, but i can't take the whole thing. if you're talking a bigger food service that's venting, that's cooking on-site, the numbers just don't work, so it's a no brainer to position a space in the size where there's going to be demand in the market. and then, the natural question is what do we do with the balance? well, the first thing we saw is right now, we need to put rest rooms here. they have to go to the bathroom, tenants have to go into the elevator, up to the lobby, into the office tower to go to the rest rooms. the office tenants are getting more about having their site secure, so putting these rest rooms on the ground floor, you know, one, it's service to the customers of the retail tenancy. two, frankly, it's easier for the employees of the retailers to have the rest rooms right there, and what do we do with the balance of the space, the

back portion of the space. that's the blue area, and this is the motinotion in the lowert of the blue area, that would be the building management office. so right now, it's up in the tower. it's not very visible. this is to elevate the presence of the management office. the darker blue portion of the space, call it lounge, tenant amenity space, whatever, the notion of a shared amenity space, that's been a repeated comment in our tenant satisfaction surveys that we do. it's a place where the employees of proper food and belange and the other retail, they're not robots. they're outside, standing up against a column on their breaks. this would be a place to go. this is something it's not just my building, this is not just my fund's building, this is more going towards a hospitality situation where

you're trying to foster community in the building, and it's fore things like buildings have long been the ice cream socials and the holiday parties, but it's a whole lot easier to do a whole lot of things, like blood drives, like toy drives, like e cycling, where tenants can bring down, it's a place where the building staff can host the frequent trainings that we're doing for the floor wardens, for fire evacuations, you know, so on and so forth, and it's really just something that takes advantage of a space that going on five years, and i'm the second asset manager that's given a go at this. i think the most telling thing was when we were interviewing the leasing brokers, i had one, and after walking the space, she looked me in the eye and she said larry, the combination of very low probability of success, the time i'm going to have to spend on this, the difficulty, i'm going to pass on bidding for this listing.

leasing brokers are notorious eternal optimists. are you kidding? i've never had a broker pass on an assignment. oh, yeah, i can do what you didn't do kind of thing. so i appreciated her candor, but also, very disappointing to hear. i've finished my prepared remarks. i'm happy to answer any

>> commissioner moore: on the street, used to buy chocolate-covered raisins in one of the small chocolate stores, which was in that building many, many years ago, probably before you actually were involved with the project. and the project is in a location where this particular space doesn't work. it never did. except for a restaurant that used to be there in the past and some of us knew when it was

there. and i believe that every attempt has been made to figure out what to do with it and it is indeed a good solution in support of successful retail, which is essential to keep and foster because that area is a little bit dead when it comes to moving down montgomery street, moving up clay, or washington into chinatown. this particular block has always been a little bit in the shadow. it's the best way to say it. i'm in support and commend mr. perry for telling us the incredible, complicated moves here and there. thank you for explaining it. i'm in full support and mick a motion to approve. >> second. >> commissioner koppel: i was just going to add that five years is long enough to wait.

>> with that motion and second. [roll call] so moved. passes 5-0. >> i will close the public hearing with the variance. >> thank you, commissioners. >> with that, we'll move on to item 15 for 2016-004524cua at 900 clement street or request for conditional use authorizization. >> good afternoon. chris may, planning staff. you have before you a request to convert 2,273 of vacant ground floor retail space to a dental office and one-car garage. remodel the office on the second

floor. construct a third floor vertical addition and excavate 373 cubic yards below the building for storage and mechanical purposes. the dental units will be separate with ground floor being accessed at the corner of clement and 10th. and the upper space, secondary entrance, further along the 10th avenue facade. because the proposed project proposes nonresidential uses in excess of 2,500 and retail use, conditional use authorization is required. no exceptions or variances are requested the project proposes a third floor addition for 1,300 residential dwelling unit, containing 2 bedrooms and 2 baths. the proposed one-car garage would be for exclusive use of the residential unit and

10-foot-wide curb cut on the 10th avenue facade. private, usable open space will be provided on two separate roof decks. one 568 square feet above the existing second story and one measuring 494 square feet and above the third floor. it proposes six bicycle parking spaces. since the publication of the staff support, the department has received one email in support. i have that here for the record. the department recommend that the planning commission approve the project on the basis that the project will complement the mix of goods and service and contributed aing a dwelling unit. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for further questions. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the project sponsor, please.

>> hi. i'm alan. good afternoon, commissioners. and we're the design architect for this project and i would like to give you a presentation of the project. in recent times, we've had a number of projects that went through the planning commission hearing and some of them are being reviewed at the moment. and we're also -- we have experience in commercial interior projects and also residential. based on the program of this project, we're very excited to take on this dental clinic, as well as residential addition on the third floor. and the project is located at the corner of 10th avenue and clement. in a previous time, it used to

be one monolithic, 120-foot-long building, which was sub divided into four individual buildings, so our client purchased this corner lot with the existing three-story building. a fact about the site, the lot is 75 feet in depth. and the zoning is n ncd-commercial. the building was built in 1979. so we looked at what are some of the possible implications from historical preservation and we seem to be all clear on that. i'd like to talk about the history of the building. this building has been a two-story establishment with a 7-eleven on the ground floor established back in '95.

and upstairs on the second floor, this is where it gets interesting. there's actually three small dental clinics up on the second floor with about two stations each. however, when we first got the project, we couldn't find any permit records for the dental establishment on the second floor. then from digging into the dental association, we did find evidence that official dental clinics were established on the second floor. these are just comparison slides between the existing and the proposed. and the third floor is going to be residential for our property owner. there is no interest in renting that out. the second floor, we're hoping to legalize a nonconforming

dental clinic into a clinic occupying the entire floor. ground floor, also a dental clinic. and then the basement, will have to do a lot of excavating to facilitate equipment. with the two issues triggering the conditional use, which is the commercial space -- nonresidential space must be under 2,500. and the permitted medical use needs to go through conditional use permit. so we do recognize that we're way over when we combine the nonresidential use. we're over by 1,800 square feet. but then i think the reality is that since day one, the client always had a vision of having two separate clinics. one on the ground floor and the

other on the second floor. and once you minus all the -- subtract out the parking garage and the building, stairway and elevator, we're looking at 1,800 square feet on the second floor and 1,500 square feet on the ground floor of the dental clinic. and so in respect to the rationale behind keeping everything under 2,500, when we look at the actual square footage, we're over 760 square feet. so we're hoping for some reasoning there. and, lastly, why this location? surprisingly, when we looked at the -- some neighborhood research, there's a high concentration of dental clinics along clement and richmond. clement street alone, there's 10 dental clinics. so i'm pretty sure that the client had that in mind when they purchased the property and

thought that the second floor may not be permitted for conditional used by thought it's appropriate at the same time. that will conclude my presentation for the project. let us know if you have any questions. >> thank you very much. i have a speaker card for lilly wu. and if anybody else wants to speak to the item, you can come up after ms. wu. >> hi. i'm lilly wu. i'm the owner of the building next door, 906 clement street. i'm not necessarily against converting existing commercial space to dental clinics, but i am against the proposed additions. the basement over 1,000 square foot is not necessary and could be reduced in size and accommodate existing space, for

storage and mechanical use only. and the third floor, one residential unit add-on. i don't see how it will benefit a community on such a busy commercial street. it doesn't necessarily commit to the resolving of housing problems the city is facing these days. and also, my major concern is this addition, the proposed additions. the construction and greatly prolonged construction period, it would be detrimental to the existing businesses operating next door. right now, that building has a restaurant and a beauty parlor on the ground floor and an art school on the second floor. i've already heard from tenants that they're worried about construction noise and

disturbance causing -- so i certainly hope the commissioners will not approve the unnecessary additions, for more anti-business space, which has been a problem in the city. thank you. >> thank you. does anybody else want to comment on this project? okay. >> hi, commissioners. >> vice president richards: i think staff's analysis was good. the basement, you know, it may not be necessary. it will create a lot of construction issues for the neighbors. adding a housing unit, creating more commercial space for professionals, which you need as the population grows, i don't really have many issues with the project.

>> any other commissioner comments? >> commissioner fong: i don't have any problems with it and move to approve. >> second. >> okay, commissioners. we have a motion -- >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: in this neighborhood and corridor, do we have any restrictions for ground floor medical? in some we do. do we have that here? >> not in this neighborhood commercial district. >> commissioner moore: no restrictio restrictions? >> it's a permitted use, yes. >> we have a motion and a second to approve the matter at 900 clement street. [roll call] >> so moved. approved 5-0. okay. so at this time, we'll move on

it our discretionary review calendar. the first item on our agenda would be 2015-001542drp. at 2514 balboa street. >> good evening. david lindsay, department staff. the project at 2514 balboa street consists of a horizontal addition at the rear of the house, two-story vertical creation of second dwelling unit. it would occupy the expanded first and second floors and fourth story set back from front and rear facades by 15 feet and set back from the east side property line by 5 feet. a roof deck will be located the a at rear of the fourth story. the project would propose a

three-bedroom flat and apartment on the third and fourth floors. it's not seeking variances or modifications from the planning code requirements. the property is on the north side of balboa between 26th and 27th avenues in outer richmond. the circa 1920 house occupies a slightly downsloping, standard light, 25 by 100. the lot is a key lot with the rear lot lines of four properties fronting 26th abutting its east property line. zoning is rh-2. this portion of outer richmond has two- and three-story single-family houses, duplexes and apartment buildings, largely dating from early in the 20th century. of the sixth properties, the subject is one of two that are two stories in height, with the remaining buildings three stories in height. immediately west of the subject property is a three-story,

four-unit apartment building. the adjacent properties to the east that front on 26th avenue are two stories in height, except for the corner building, which is three stories in height. with respect to public comment, 12 neighbors have indicated one opposition, one letter of support from grow the richmond organization, received after the packets went out. and i have a copy of that document here to pass around and enter into the record. d.r. requester is jack wong, who owns 693 26th avenue. this property -- the rear yard of his property abutts the east property line. mr. wong's concerns are as follows. that the project's fourth floor is not compatible with the neighborhood character, that the project will creep eight health and safety hazards with respect

to mold, sewage, ventilation and loss of light. that the project could be converted to additional dwelling units and it could block views from adjacent buildings. following the submittal of the d.r. request, the residential design advisory team considered the issues raised and recommended that the project be modified to address neighborhood character with respect to window size and type as well as -- window size and type, as well as detailing. the residential design advisory team requested the proposed four story be set back 15 feet in order to address the concerns regarding massing and impact to light and air to adjacent properties the project sponsor submitted revised plans incorporating the design team's comments and the

deep finds that as revised the project meets the standards of the guidelines and does not create or contain any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the department recommends that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as revised. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. d.r. requester? who is the d.r. requester on this? yes, sir. please come up. >> so you will have 5 minutes. >> good afternoon. >> good evening. my name is jack wong. 693 26th avenue occupant. i am concerned about the construction of the top unit

because that area, especially in summertime, is typically overcast, wet and humid, which causes a lot of black mold around that area. i had a report done and it showed a problem with moisture because of the shading and the climate, especially in the summertime. i would say we get about 30%, 40% overcast weather. and i read something in regard to the inspection from the centers for disease control. and it says that, it's not necessary to determine the type of mold. all mold should be treated as potentially hazardous to the health and be removed. black mold may grow on paper,

dust, lint or gypsum. water damages, flooding, condensation or excess humidity can cause mold to grow. before construction, it has seemed an eradication for the mold infestation around the area. it is potentially hazardous for senior citizens and toddlers. and i got something from the planning code, section 101, states that one of the purposes of the planning code is to provide adequate light, air, privacy, and convenience to access to property in san francisco. and i will thank you for the

time to give me presentation to the commissioner. >> you will have time for rebuttal. >> yes. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the project sponsor. those in favor of the d.r. requester, please come up for public comment. the folks in the public that support the d.r. requester. yes. >> hi. thank you for your time. my name is chanel busiok. and my husband and i live adjacent to this property. we have two major concerns. one, i believe there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to change the plans of this project, mainly related to the loss of light and

ventilation. we conducted an informal light study and the matching light will not prevent loss of the only correct sunlight for two of our four units. the process of informing the neighbors about this project has been poor and disappointing. quite frankly, it's been shoddy and out of compliance. here's some reasons. number one, almost no one on our block or in adjacent properties received notice of the pre-planning meeting. number two, the first we heard of the project was the notification required by 311-312, which prompted the d.r. the problem, very few neighbors within 150 feet received this notice, including none across the street. number three, when we received the notice of a public hearing in the mail a few days ago, it contained this letter, which i ha

have, and it's the wrong -- they sent us the wrong letter. the only way we found out that this was -- the date of our hearing was by calling sara directly. number four and most importantly, this -- the owner did not post a required notice of hearing on the property, which is -- i know he's supposed to have a sign on his building 10 days before the hearing. and he did not have that posted. so nobody knows of this project and it seems kind of sneaky that all of these compliances have not been met. here's just a picture of today, this morning, to show that there is no sign on the property that there is a hearing today. and that's something that he was supposed to have. so not a lot of people know about this project. after all that, it's in my good faith that moving forward with this process would are out of

compliance. i took my own time to walk around and inform all our neighbors and to our surprise no one knew about it. 15 signatures were submitted with the d.r. and we got another five last night. when i asked the architect if i could speak with the owner, he said that the owner declined to talk to any of the neighbors. my neighbors and i welcome a project with proper communication that makes an effort to lessen impact on our surroundings. that's not the case the public's interest is in concern. the fourth floor with six units and a lot of foot traffic, makes it concerned it will be more than one unit and they will try to create multiple units for this and that would not be fair. our suggestion is to remove the fourth floor because it blocks the sun and properly inform our neighbors so everyone has a say. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other public comment in

support of the d.r. requester? >> good evening. i'm teresa wong. i live on 26th and balboa. so we are right next to them. and i echo the thoughts of my neighbor. we were hardly informed about any of the proceedings. i think we found out originally only by talking to jack, our neighbor, on the other side. so it seems like the planning went forward without any notice. we literally found out when jack decided to do the d.r. in addition to that, the parking is very tight there.

and by adding essentially doubling the living space with a six-unit building, there will be so much traffic and in the past couple of years we've lost a lot of parking spots. by putting into the unit -- and it says it's a single-family residenc residence, but the last couple of years, there's been probably students living there. so every year, there's a new set of people coming in and out. it has increased the trash. when people leave, they dump their stuff out on the street. my sister saw somebody from the unit bring their garbage can over to 26th avenue, because their garbage is on balboa street, and leave their can in front of somebody else's house

to be dumped. and they were fully aware, giggling, my sister said, as they did this. i think by increasing the living space and creating a second unit with six bedrooms, we're afraid that there will be a bunch of people, not a family, living there, and it will increase the traffic. there will be less parking. there will be more noise. in the past when a family was not living there, there's been parties there. the police have been called at least once. and even when the police came, the party did not disperse. the police had to come back. so we're concerned about the quality of life for the rest of the neighbors. in addition to the fact that we're going to lose the light, my father's bedroom is facing their building. he is an elderly gentleman.

so we're concerned about the mold. there is somebody else in the building that has asthma, whose bedroom is in the back. so the mold, the light, and there are many concerns and we feel that we did not get to express any of this because we were not informed. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment in support of the d.r. requestor? okay. so we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening. i'm the project sponsor for 2514 balboa. per the requestor, regarding the sunlight and ventilation, our property is abutting the backyard, to the east of the subject property. given the 5-foot setback and the

closest to -- the closest building to our building on the east side is 21 feet. the furthest one is 24 feet, plus 5 feet, almost 30 feet away. and regarding of the notification process, we went through a proper notification process. we -- we requested the preapplication notice. it's the licensed agent that does the services, they've been in business for a very long time. i have notices that i sent out. i actually spoke to their staff on how they did the list and

they said they walked the block and jotted down every address there is and then basically matched against their data and sent out the list. and that's how we got our mailing list and sent it out. we didn't do that ourselves. there's an affidavit that was signed by them and we've been using them for quite many years now. there never had been a problem. so the radius is 150 feet. for reaching out to the neighbors, one of the adjacent owners. her name is sandra mangle. she requested a site visit, on site, february 10, 2017. i was happy to do so. i was out there meeting her. and i walked her through the project, and what will be done and what will be done during the

construction period. and i conduct all the surveys for her any concerns she had and she had a letter of meeting on site that day. one of the tenants contacted us via email and phone calls. i worked closely with him to address his concerns. he has a concern regarding a child that was born probably during construction and wanted us to hold off on construction for a certain period of time. i spoke to him to find a middle ground and we could not really meet in the middle ground. and that's the thing that is unfortunate, but we did our due diligence to work with the neighbor and to work to address their concern.

we're proposing for two tenant parking. we're allowed to have two units and we're building two units, two tenant parking. so parking wise, we meet the basics of one parking spot per unit. thank you. >> thank you. you have a 2-minute rebuttal? >> public comment. >> sorry. public comment in favor of the project sponsor, please. there doesn't seem to be any. so now you have a rebuttal. project sponsor? i mean, d.r. requestor? sorry. sir, if you would like to rebut any points that the project sponsor has made, now is your time to come up and do so.

okay. commissioner moore? >> and sponsor gets 2 minutes. >> sorry. this is my first time doing this. project sponsor, you can do rebuttal but there was no rebuttal. would you like to they any more time? no. okay. now, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: mr. lindsay, notification, do we have a problem with the building not having the proper sign on the outside? >> well, that's the first i had heard about a d.r. hearing sign not being posted. if that is, in fact, true, that is a problem. it's supposed to be posted 10 days ahead of the hearing and the applicant is required to sign an affidavit to that effect and take a photograph of it. if that information -- if the project sponsor can provide that information, that's what we would accept. >> commissioner moore: then we

have it have that information before we continue with the hearing, i assume, otherwise, it would need to be kind. is there a photo with the sign on the building? >> it hasn't been submitted to me. [inaudibl [inaudible] >> commissioner moore: what would you advise? is there issues we should be discussing? it deals with generic issues that are inherent in these plans, then there are concerns to enlarge a building almost four times its size. it's a little bit unusual. so how would you suggest we handle this? we need to follow your recommendation here. >> we need to check out the poster issue. so i would think we should have you continue it. >> commissioner moore: move to continue. >> second.

>> commissioners, what date would we want to or, mr. lindsay? >> commissioner moore: you have to verify the sign is posted and it needs to be on for 10 days. >> right. so we could potentially -- if, in fact, the poster was not -- it's an orange poster on the front of the building saying that the hearing is on such and such a date. so it's a 10-day requirement. if there is no poster up right now, we could be back in two weeks. >> commissioner moore: one of the speakers said that they had received address -- >> yes, we had some issues but they were corrected. they went out a year ago,

expired march 2. and the d.r. filed on the last day of the notification. so it was -- the 311, if there was, in fact, and it looks as though there was an issue with the wrong address, it was corrected by staff and i have confidence in that. >> commissioner moore: as long as we have it in public record that that has been addressed. then i think your suggestion about choosing a date that allows 10 days of sign on the building to notify people, perhaps you could suggest a date. >> looking at the advanced calendar, you have four d.r.s in that hearing, but one of them will fall off. so if you wanted to move it to february 22, that would be a viable -- >> commissioner moore: is that acceptable to the applicant and d.r. requestor? >> if i might jump in, in the interest of trying to finalize

it at that hearing, do you have any direction to the project sponsor? >> commissioner moore: i have a couple of issues with the project. if you want me to just speak about that, i can do that. >> i think it would be helpful. >> commissioner moore: i would like to ask the commission about the sizing of the enlargement of unit one and the adding of unit two in size and configuration raises questions, further augmented by my concern about a space assigned on the first floor, which is called recreate room. share with both units. that raises a lot of red flags. it looks like a party room. it looks like whatever. if the two units are supposed to be ownership units, there is no such thing that people would share a common area.

that's highly unusual for ownership units in an rh district. i do not want to let some of the testimony overshadow my judgment, but it's somehow supportive of an assignment in a large piece of space here that is not necessary and desirable for multifamily unit building. i think the building is slightly oversized. and i think we should be asking that the building is more property sized residential units for what is in the area. there are some strange things suggested. a two-unit residential building does not need a fire escape. when you look at the rear of the building, there is a dash line of two bay windows. and in the middle of the bay

windows, is a ladder, which is identified as a fire escape. this type of residential has residential sprinkling and the fire department does not allow ladders like this anyway, nor is there a fire escape required. so this thing has a lot of questions and perhaps those things should be revisited in order to bring a project forward that has a little bit more reality to it. i want to be careful how i say this. i appreciate the department's review with pulling the building back and adjacentcy, but i want people to look at the fire escape ladder with a more useful assignment of what the recreate room means. if we have a first floor unit that uses that part as part of

the unit, perhaps it would be the right side and we could lop off the fourth floor and size the second unit more appropriately. those are my thoughts. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: when i looked at the pocket, i was really trying to search and find for who had done the drawings. and i could not discern that. i see it's drawn by somebody with the initials j.c. was this an architect drawing this? i'm questioning the accuracy of the existing condition and i'm trying to understand the qualification of this person to do the drawings, because it's a two-unit building and not a single-family home. this is the first time i've seen from a health and safety point of view somebody bringing up material that says that the building could have health and safety issues because of mold.

i would like to understand from the d.r. requestor, were those taken in the yard, measurements, in the house? i see there were photos of what appeared to be a living room or a bedroom. i'm concerned that a build building overshadowing, shade-causing mold is an issue. you can see mold all over the buildings there. the other is density equity. we talk about density equity here. we'll have another coming out of the gate here. we would rather see two more even-sized unit, rather than a gargantuan unit and a small unit. and the last point is, the one elevation showed the wall. it's horrible. it's plywood with the seams in

it. i would rather have higher-quality materials. somebody will have to look at having their light and air blocked, at least it would be higher quality than just plywood. >> commissioner moore: thank you for bringing that up, commissioner richards. i would generally say that the package for this type of building expansion is very thin. it does not really speak to window sections or materials or have the 3-d. the package is thin. it's the lower end of what we're expecting for this type of application. so i would encourage the applicant to spend more time. and if it's not drawn by a licensed architect or somebody with a stamp on here to be sure

it meets the minimum requirement for something like this that comes to the department. i pointed out the fire escape ladder. so i would suggest that the applicant consider taking more time, making adjustments to the project and not just take the 10 days. i think the questions we're currently raising will be on the table 10 days from now. >> and communicating with the neighbors. >> yes, that's implied, yes. >> i was going to say, we're going to need more than two weeks here. i would suggest, i don't know, five, six weeks to give time to meet with the neighbors and do the changes you've asked for. >> mr. lindsay, did you have anything else? >> yes. to commissioner richards on the siding on the elevation. i see what you are looking at. that's against the adjacent building. the side