>> clerk: good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote meeting for march 3, 2022. remote hearings require everyone's attention and, most of all, their patience. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment for every item on this agenda. opportunities for public comment are available by calling 415-655-0001 and then entering access code 2484-237-3068. when we reach your item of

interest, press star, three to enter the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your time to begin your comments. best practices are to speak slowly and clearly, call from a quiet location, and turn down any speakers. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 2, 2019-022850-env at

1101-1123 sutter street -- and cua for 1101-1123 sutter street, and item 2022-00457-cwp, updates to the planning commission policy, procedures for in-kind

agreements. also, your short calendar today is getting shorter. item 11, 2021-001049-drp at 1548-1550 leavenworth street. we will take public comment. seeing no one lined up to speak, public comment is closed. >> commissioner koppel: i move we continue the items as

proposed. >> commissioner imperial: second. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 7-0, and we are now on item 4, commission comments and questions. >> president tanner: i'm seeing if there's any commissioner comments or questions? i'd just like to wish everyone a happy women's history month. >> clerk: if there are no commission comments or questions, commissioners, if you'll indulge me, i wanted to suggest that, in recognition of

the recent events in eastern europe, i wonder if we might adjourn in opposition to the unnecessary and tragic loss of life and a wish for peace between two sister nations. >> president tanner: an excellent idea. the tragic events that are unfolding in ukraine. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i'd like to support that motion. city hall is lit up in support of ukraine. i'm not sure if you saw it last night, but the color of the

ukrainian flags are completely engulfing city hall, and i would fully support that. >> clerk: thank you for that. commissioners, item 5, 2021-009977-crv, remote hearings. we've received an updated resolution which was forwarded to you last night, so that is what is now before you, commissioners, which recognizes the in-person hybrid meeting when we do return to city hall, and the resolution allows remote meeting, if need be, to continue.

members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak. >> this is sue hester. the last item was really hard to understand. a notice last week was given in the newspaper, or a newspaper notice. are you slated to be back at city hall on the 24? that is my question, and if you're not slated to be back on the 24, i ask you to put an item on your next meeting, a calendared item for next week, so the people who get calendars understand that they can talk and not just the commissioners. live hearings have much better

participation by the public because we can hear each other, we can see who's speaking. we can't see who's speaking right now, and we're very frustrated. i'm very frustrated with remote hearings. you get that fact. thank you very much. please clarify what's going on. thank you. >> oh, hi. good afternoon, it's georgia schiutish. last night, the board of appeals also decided doing hybrid meetings, and it's a good things. i appreciate last week the comments made by the commission about sitting in the room. i just want to comment how close the seats are when we sit next to each other.

there's not much space, shared armrests, and if someone really sneezes or coughs behind you, you really know it. the time for public comment, i hope that when the meetings are in person, i hope the traditional time returns. today, i plan to speak on one of the d.r.s, and one minute of public comment is not really enough. i'd be happy with two, and really happy with three. as you know, most of the planning issues before you have a lot of details, and they're complex and require a lot of words that the public needs to share so they believe they're being heard. plus, people get nervous, and

they need a little time in case they fumble their words. i know the commission doesn't listen, but the public needs to believe that you listen, and that's harder with those covid time limits. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. last chance for public comment on remote hearings and turning to in-person hybrid hearings. for members of the public, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you. >> president tanner: great. jonas, and for members of the public, this is the time that has been requested and that has been provided to you. maybe, director hillis, could you share a -- maybe, mr.

ionin, could you share with us your trip to city hall? >> clerk: sure. room 400 has been equipped with a merv filtration system, so in my visit, it was simply getting trained on the new equipment, collaborating and organizing with sfgovtv and other media services folks as to how the meeting will be run, my role in things. i don't think too much will change for members of the

commission or members of the public, for that matter. to georgia schiutish's point, i appreciate that comment, and i think we need to discuss logistics if and when we do return to room 400 as to appropriate distancing, and my suggestion, as georgia astutely pointed out, would simply be to rope off every other row so that people aren't sitting directly behind each other, and then, some natural spacing would occur if people were to not sit in groups and separate by one or two chairs. i know the city is dropping many masking mandates, many distancing mandates, but my understanding right now is. >> supervisor stefani: haul will be requiring all persons,

commissioners, staff, members of the public, vaccinated or not, to wear masks. there is no specific type of mask that will be required of people, but masking, for now at least -- this changes every day -- is, for now, required. so the ventilation system should be improved? there are no windows in our chambers, unfortunately, but it is a fairly voluminous space. other than that, there really are no changes to the room at all. >> president tanner: thank you. and i'll just ask that i did have some conversations with staff, and i just looked into what we could do. i think as secretary ionin is suggest, we could see some spacing requirements. it's already tight in there even if there wasn't covid, so perhaps roping off every other

row would be a great way to perhaps have more room. folks are going to have masks on. we could also have higher quality masks at the attendee's discretion, but it would be a courtesy to provide that. we could do social distancing. we did look at requiring vaccinations to enter, and that's not something that we're going to be able to implement for coming into the chambers, and i think that ventilation was another concern. i think it was just how closely we sit to each other, and i don't think the dais has been arranged differently. i hope the folks would consider some of these measures that we

can do to consider returning to in-person meetings in the next few weeks. >> clerk: commissioner tanner, in that matter related to the dais, if all members come and attend, we could create some additional spacing between commissioners. traditionally, staff has sat up on the dais with you, but there is availability to sit sort of behind and across from me where the city attorneys have sat before, so there is availability for additional distancing to be accommodated for the commissioners up on the dais. >> president tanner: oh, that's a great thing. that's a good solution to create a little more elbow room on the dais, especially if we have a full seat of commissioners. so again, just want to make an invitation of questions by staff or each other, make any suggestions on the kind of

returning to city hall. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i have a question. making an announcement when there's going to be an in-person hearing, i assume it's already out or it's not already out? how would people -- like, say there will be commissioners who are doing an in-person, how will they be informed? >> president tanner: yeah, if you could tell us how the noticing is going to go out or how it's going to be either remote or hybrid? >> clerk: right now, the noticing states it may be an in-person hearing in city hall or it may be remote. it directs people for our website for direction on how and when it will occur.

commissioners, it will be entirely up to you as to when we resume in-person hearings, and the city mandate directs if one commissioner chooses to be in person, then the hearing will be in city hall and open to the public. >> president tanner: okay. thank you. and then, maybe kind of related question, but really in the weeds. in city hall, let's say it's a situation where some of us are not in person, some of us are there. will we need to bring our own computers so i can see other commissioners or people who want to speak? >> clerk: you'll certainly need to bring your own laptops because otherwise, we'll get the reverberation in the room, that sound broadcast over the sfgov stream or broadcast. having said that, i -- for some

reason, i thought all of the monitors were also updated so they were going to be, like, these images sitting up on the dais for commissioners who opt out of the in-person and witch witch -- wish to remain remote. essentially, it'll be very similar to this. when someone is speaking, their image will then be on the screens in the room and visible, so i think that will be the most important thing to remember is to turn your mic on when you're speaking when you're remote. obviously, there are other solutions outside of here, but i think that's the one that we're looking at. >> president tanner: thank you. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i have another question in terms

of the public access. so the public access, from my understanding, people can come into the city hall, but there's also a call-in option. how will that work in that room? let's say a commissioner is in there. just trying to understand how we'll hear them. >> clerk: yeah, no, absolutely. it's not going to be maybe the nightmare i had anticipated because i'm so familiar with the webex platform, and it's been so successful for us, so we're going to continue to use this webex platform. for members of the public, there will be no difference if you wish to call in to provide your public comment. it'll be the exact same way. we'll be issuing our agendas with the call-in number, with the access i.d. number. and probably, whatever the chair prefers, but when it

comes time for public comment, we would request all members of the public in the room lineup to submit their public comment. when that sort of in-person comment period concludes, we would then open it up to people who call in to speak so that we go through those in an orderly manner. >> president tanner: and then, their voices would be piped in through the speakers? >> clerk: yes. we tested it with my staff on wednesday to make sure that it did work well. we did have an issue with the chime. it was not very audible, especially when you're speaking on the phone, so we may have issues with people going over that time, but i will verbally remind people that their time

is up. >> president tanner: we'll be entering more territory when we return. >> commissioner imperial: i have another question because miss schiutish brought it up, different requirements for the hybrid. i am kind of curious, also for the other commissioners to chime in on this, where if a call-in public comment, should we apply the -- you know, what we're doing with the hybrid or the remote, and then, if there's an in-person public, should we apply [indiscernible] in the city hall? i think that's also kind of a logistic thing, but i would like to hear what other commissioners hear about that.

>> clerk: commissioner imperial, we could not differentiate time between those speaking in city hall and those calling in. each person speaking would receive the same amount of time. >> president tanner: we're opening to revisiting some of our practices that we've adopted on-line as we go into hybrid. we're really, again, cutting into a new phase, and we have new approaches that we might find that work best for everyone. i don't see any other comments from folks who want to speak, so if there's anyone who would like to make a motion on the resolution, we can entertain that now. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: move to approve the motion. >> president tanner: second? >> commissioner imperial: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. just for clarity, it is the resolution that was forwarded to all of you last night and

made available to the public at the same time. on that motion, commissioners -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0, and just an aside, if any of you or group of you would like to tour the room and see what it feels like, i'd be happy to arrange that for you. commissioners, that places us under item 6, director's announcements. >> director hillis: good afternoon, commissioners. as you know, staff are headed back to the office next week, most of us a minimum of two days a week. that will be happening starting monday. i just wanted to highlight

those coming into the office the past two years because a handful of our staff have been doing that throughout the pandemic. our office management team, folks from the enforcement team and doing mail, and staff that provide the public with information, and i just want to thank them for all of their work over these past two years. i know it's been challenging but relatively successful, so thanks to our team for doing that, and that's all i have. >> president tanner: i don't have any questions, but i'll just second that folks have

performed admirably, and it's so great to seeing so many employees and industries coming back in march, and i hope it's for the best for our city and businesses. thank you so much for all of your hard work. >> clerk: indeed. review of past events at the board of supervisors -- >> president tanner: sorry, jonas. i think i see commissioner moore with her hand up, as well. >> vice president moore: i just wanted to say that two years ago, there was another herculean effort by planning department staff because two years ago, they packed up and

changed locations. >> starting next monday, since we will all be coming back to the office, we are also updating our preapplication procedures. as you all know, when we went into sheltering from home, we asked our applicants to preapply remotely, and we've heard from residents and applicants that they want to get back to business, so we'll be going back to in-person. starting next monday, we are allowing applicants to do either, either remote, in-person, or a hybrid system. should they choose to do any element of remote, they'll need

to follow all the remote requirements that we've had the last two years, including a toll free or 800 number to call in. starting july 1, our plan is back to fully in person preapplication meetings, so i just wanted to let the public know that we'll be easing back in on monday with a full requirement in-person back on july 1. >> president tanner: can i ask for that requirement to come back in person? maybe it's just the apparatus to host the virtual is challenging. >> a lot of the feedback that we've had from community folks is that they really miss having

that in-person interaction, typically at the project site, which is the requirement at the project site or in the close proximity, so that's the direction that we have. the preapplication is a policy. it's not codified, so as we approach july, if this is commission that the commission wants to adopt a hybrid approach temporarily or in perpetuity, but it's been a struggle with folks identifying what is a local phone number, etc., so being able to kind of take that off the table and requiring people to just show up in person seems like a streamlined way to maintain this requirement, but again, it's your policy. >> president tanner: yeah, i think it's something that we can take a look at. i'm thinking of a neighbor that cannot come at that specific time. how is the option for recording

or i'm think of an option for the working community if they're commuting home or something like that. certainly, the option to be in person, i am happy that it would go in that direction to have that option. vice president moore? you're on mute, i think. >> vice president moore: the one thing i would add, also, in terms of social equity and accessibility, technology in particular, you need to have a reasonably well functioning computer to participate on-line. and again, i have not been in that situation, but we need to keep that in the mind of how

we'll move forward. >> president tanner: thank you for the idea. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move onto item 7. there was no historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, director of public affairs. first up was the consideration for the golden gate carnegie library. specifically, the carnegie library grant program. it's also an example of an institutional building designed by a master architect. the building displays distinctive characteristics of the neoclassical style as

associated with the city's work beautiful movement. this city has been on the historic site list since 1999, when six other libraries were added. at the hearing this week, there was only one public commenters who expressed concern over the language using to design character defining -- describe character defining features of the property. at the end of the hearing, the committee unanimously voted to recommend approval of the landmark designation to the full board. the committee also considered the landmark designation for 447 battery street. solicitors of the board report will remember that this was originally heard at the landmark committee last year when it was tabled by commissioner peskin.

the h.p.c. recommended landmark designation. the h.p.c. found 447 battery street, constructed in 1907, was culturally significant with the reconstruction of downtown san francisco following the 1906 earthquake and fires. the h.p.c. also found that the building was not architecturally significant and recommended that the three-story height and roughly rectangular footprint description be removed from the list of character defining features. after peskin reactivated the land use designation, it was brought back before the committee and unanimously recommended for approval consistent approximate the h.p.c.s recommendation. next, the land use committee heard a hearing on supervisor

mar's resolution to develop an incentive program for homeowners. the purpose of the program is to help middle, moderate, and low-income houses expand their homes to duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, including a.d.u.s. this is intended to be commercial and technical assistance and free access to design and technical professionals. a representative from asian, inc. presented on the a.d.u. pilot program that was sponsored by supervisor mar in partnership with asian, inc. there was not a lot of public comment, but some of the commenters suggested that the programs should be granted, not

loans. the committee then voted to recommend the resolution to the full board. next, the board considered supervisor peskin's motion to amend the ordinance to include the [indiscernible] during public comment, there were a lot of speakers, and their testimony was like that the planning commission heard at their hearing. some commenters talked about the need to -- for the proposed amendments while others expressed concern that this would eliminate a viable housing model from the city. at the end, the committee did vote to amend the ordinance to

include supervisor peskin's modifications, however, they needed to continue the item because the amendments were deemed substantive. lastly, the committee discovered the mayor's [indiscernible], cleverly named [indiscernible] -- automobiles to offices. prior to the hearing, the sponsor included most of the

commission's recommendations except the admission shorthand title and the rh-1 zoning. during the hearing, the supervisors had questioned about adding rent control and increasing the inclusionary amount. supervisor peskin had proposed amendments intended to insure his [indiscernible] would not be impacted by this ordinance. supervisor melgar's comments were mostly supportive and said she had hoped this program would bring more inclusionary programs to the ready. the committee continued the items to the call of the chair, as next week's calendar is too

full to continue it one week. at the full board this week, the-passed its first reading. supervisor mandelman's ordinance that we create the large home initiative in his district passed. and the massage controls for -- sponsored by supervisor manned will han -- mandelman also passed its first reading. [indiscernible] to establish a cannabis retail business with no on-site smoking. the project would not include

any structural work to the existing building. concerns by the appellant was the amount and type of retail on the site, the possibility of odor. members of the public in support of the appeal expressed concern about the potential odor impacts and that the ceqa review was not good enough notably, there were no comments or questions from the supervisors during the hearing, and once public comment was over, they quickly voted to uphold the ceqa determination and deny the appeal. lastly, the supervisor housing incentive program was adopted this week, and that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to take any questions that you

have. >> clerk: okay. if there are no questions, mr. starr, there is a report from the board of appeals. they met last evening and heard an appeal of the cannabis retail establishment at 2000 oakdale avenue. you heard this matter as a d.r. on december 9 of 2021, and the d.r. requester basically cited concerns about odor impacts. after hearing, the commission voted unanimously not to take discretionary review and approve the project. a ceqa review was heard on march 1. the appellant cited the same

environmental impacts and lack of public review. after hearing, the board of supervisors unanimously voted 10-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the ceqa exemption. last night at the hearing, the appellant voiced his concerns about odor impacts, and the board voted 4-0 on the basis that the department properly reviewed the permit. if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the substance matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up

to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your time to begin your comments. >> oh, hi. it's georgia schiutish. mr. ionin, your comments about ukraine were appropriate. i didn't want to send a public comment because i was distressed about the whole thing, but i did. i sent you some things previously. read it if you want, don't read it -- i mean, i sent it before, and you need to read it. the article from sf.com from 2012, that article could have been written any time in the

past ten years. the planning commission does have a tool to close the loophole that is spotlighted in the article, and that tool to close the loophole of 317, and that is 317-b-2-d, and that is reducing the demo calcs. thank you. bye. >> this is sue hester. preapp meetings are being used by developers to basically force people to call in or attend using zoom, and zoom only has a place to call in

from san jose, which is a long distance call for everyone that has a landline. so unless you do totally on-line from a cell phone u -- cell phone, you don't have the availability for an hour of the meeting. i was told they're changing instructions on-line, and changing instructions on-line are not going to change the problems. this is discriminating to low-income people and people who depend on landlines, so i'm asking the board to look at

planning department meetings. one of the things that they should do is look at the [indiscernible] thank you. >> clerk: seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and we can move onto your regular calendar. item 8, 2014-001272-dva-03, the pier 70 development. this is a request for an amendment to the design for development. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> i am, jonas.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. michael christiansen, permit center staff. the item before you, on august 24, 2017, through motion number 19980, the planning commission approved the design for development to establish control standards and guidelines specific to the pier 70 mixed use development. at the same hearing, the commission approved general plan amendments, zoning map amendments, planning code text amendments, and amendments for development. on february 20, the planning commission approved an

amendment for this design to development to contain up to nine floors where previously were limited to seven floors, with no changes to the maximum height or bulk. since the amendment, the master developer, brookfield, has obtained permits for two buildings, one residential building and a nonresidential building that was 365,000 square feet in size. the response hectare has received approval for rehabilitation of multiple historic buildings of the site. the current proposed amendment to the d4d would amendment the retail and office use for the

project. the retail use definition change is purely technical in nature and would clarify that the multiple ways we describe retail within the d4d all correlate to the retail use's definition in the d4d. our implementation of the project is already in line with this, and this change would only resolve inconsistent use of the terminology. it would serve two purposes, first, it would resolve similar inconsistencies in the d4d. in the document, we use the terms office, commercial-office, office-space, and space all

interchangeably. additionally, the amendment would establish the parcel designated for office use may be developed with design professional, life science, or laboratory uses. the department reviewed the terms, and establishing clear definitions is a best practice. additionally, there was no intention in the d4d to preclude the use of parcels as laboratory projects. the only parcel affected by this change would be parcels that are already designated for office uses, and the change does not affect the overall development capacity of the site. additionally, our environmental

review team reviewed the requested amendment, and found that the amended definition do not create any new or existing environmental impacts as described in the existing environmental impact report. there is some concern generally citywide about lab uses encroaching into areas for p.d.r. uses, however, this only affects portions of the pier 70 site or portions of buildings within the site that are already designated for use as office uses, including the ground floors of building 12,

21, and 24. establishing a design professional laboratory and life science uses are considered office uses in pier 70 would establish where in the project site those uses are permissible while also clearly defining where those uses are be permissible. currently, the design for development lacks clear direction on where those uses are not permissible. if this commission approves this use, it would go back to the port commission for review. staff recommends approval as proposed. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. a representative from brookfield is also available for questions. >> clerk: thank you, mr. christiansen. if there's no immediate

questions from the members of the commission, members of the public, this is your chance to provide public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. [indiscernible] i'm here today speaking in support of amending the pier 70 design for development agreement. the first part of our support is a historic support. we went through a very lengthy process with pier 70, at times contentious, other times very friendly, and we always understood that that versatility, the ability for life sciences to be in that development was there, and if it's not there because of the technical drafting of the d4d, then let's, by all means, fix that. but the second thing that mr. christiansen referred to is the need for life sciences.

we see marketing for what we would consider p.d.r. for life sciences all the time, and it's needed for a very diverse set of jobs in the city. we highly support building life sciences spaces along the waterfront and would like to see that at pier 70, so we request that you approve this amendment of the d4d. thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. last call for public comment. you need to press star, three. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners. >> president tanner: call on commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yes, thank you for that staff report. i have a question for

environmental review staff if they're available. >> commissioner diamond, i don't believe we have environmental review staff available, but i'm happy to try to answer your question. >> commissioner diamond: okay. i just want to make sure that i understand the environmental review that took place concerning these uses. i'm not concerned about the environmental impact that comes from the people that are there, traffic, etc., i'm more concerned about the practices that go on in the labs. do we have limits on the kind of labs that can be there, biosafety levels in particular? what do we do about the materials that are used in the experiments, the fume hoods,

all of the issues that come up when we are looking at projects that are permitted primarily for laboratory [indiscernible]. >> president tanner: maybe i can answer this as i share the concerns, so as i just wonder, those life science uses, as they are realized, as we are able to have those mitigations in place and keep the other uses, outdoor spaces accessible while keeping in compliance with life science uses? >> sure. so there's a couple of topics there. first, in terms of general

separation, the project does not include parcels that are combining residential and life science uses. it is a separate definition, so they will be on separate parcels. we did discuss this with staff.

when it comes to a mission of [indiscernible] so there is an existing regulatory structure that governs this. the existing e.i.r. contains numerous mitigation measures for air quality. most of them identified certain project features, construction, of course, but also generators on the site as being the main area where there may be potential for emissions and contains measures for those, and those measures still would

ally -- apply for those uses. as i stated, the bay area water quality district has measures to measure impacts from those. >> commissioner diamond: are you allowing any kind of laboratory use or are you seeking permission for any kind of laboratory use in the space? >> thank you, commissioner diamond. kelley [indiscernible] from brookfield properties here. we are -- in keeping consistency with the planning code, using the planning code definition of laboratory and the uses that are allowed under that definition, so it's not any broader than would already be included in the planning

code, no. >> president tanner: i don't see any other names in the back -- commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you for that. i'll make a motion to approve as proposed. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve the amendments as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, placing us under your discretionary review calendar, item 9, 2021-001932-drp, at

649 28 street. mr. winslow? >> thank you, jonas. david winslow, planning staff architect. this is a request for discretionary review of building permit scrub 2021.0201.3744 to construct a rear horizontal and vertical addition to a two-story, one-family residential building within an rh-1 zoning district and 40-k height and bulk district. a neighborhood is concerned that the project does not match the existing setbacks from the

planning commission in order to maintain the scale and topography at the street. further, that the project will block light and cast shadows into the rear yard of the main home and the accessory dwelling unit, and further that the project would invade the privacy with direct views of the windows. to date, the department has received no letters of opposition and one letter in

support of the project. the planning department's review of this proposal recommends approval. this project has a three-story downhill neighbor fronting the street to its immediate east. the d.r. filer has a third story set back 15 feet. the upper floor of the proposed project has a proposed set back of 5'10" including setbacks that includes the neighbor's property line windows. with this setting, the upper floor of this project balances the scale at the street and meets the guideline related following the topography. additionally, the upper floor is mitigated to minimize impacts to light and air.

as designed, the rear extension with a three-foot side set back ensures capability with the side development open space and therefore, staff recommends not taking d.r. and approving. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. mcmann, you have three minutes. >> okay. i'd like to share my screen -- thank you. >> clerk: it's being done.

>> my name is chris mcmann, representing the homeowner who purchased the home last year. he was aware of the proposal to build a house downhill adjacent to his. he actually has a two-unit building. the a.d.u. is quite large. it's 1400 square feet, i believe, so the main things we wanted to point out, and mr. pearlman, who's the representative architect applicant, he has, in his 67 or 70-page summary, is he has many false comments and false measurements and so forth.

the main reason that we're very concerned about this is because the applicant's project, the single-family home, 4300 or 4400 square feet doesn't respect the set back that we were -- that his house was required to conform to, and mainly, that would be the height limit. in fact, my client's house was limited to 29.5 feet high, measured from the centerline of the lot from curb, and the front of the top floor, third floor, was required to be 15-foot set back, and that was after telling us that 12 feet was okay and then redesigning it for 15. we were also excluded from having any deck on the third floor, and this was by a commissioner in the transcript

of a commission meeting on june 8, 2017. no balconies or decks on the third floor. but one of the things is we have an a.d.u. that is somewhat subterranean facing the side of the house. we have a five-foot set back at the rear, and this is not mr. pearlman's design at 649. it does not respect this at all. in fact, he's only got 3 feet as if it was a lightwell, but we're required to do that five-foot set back at that time. this is where the only two windows of the accessory dwelling unit are, and again, they're below grade, so his house, moving over it is just -- oversized and would block so much light and air.

thank you. >> clerk: okay. you still have a few seconds left. >> okay. very good. >> clerk: you will have a one-minute rebuttal after public comment, so we should go to the project sponsor, mr. pearlman. you will have three minutes. >> thank you. i'd like to go over the d.r. filer's claim that was in their application. they talk specifically about light, air, and privacy to their a.d.u. at 653 28, and that somehow we weren't respecting that. this is a forever home with my client with a very young

family. this will allow three bedrooms on the top floor, and on the lower floor behind the garage, an additional two bedrooms for a couple who work from home so they can each have an office or future parents living on the site. this project was designed to be neighborly stepping back. next slide, please. according to the guidelines, some reduction of light is always expected with a building expansion, and it was recommended that we provide setbacks on the third floors and a sloped roof. all of these mitigations were included in our original

design. you can see from the diagram on the bottom right that the setbacks are increased along the property line on the front, and then, we meet the residential design guidelines on the rear portion. but given the orientation that these properties are north-south, so the back of the house faces south, it's physically impossible for the project to have any impact on the light quality on 653, and virtually no impact to air as a whole. these slides are of the d.r. filer's home. you can see that the a.d.u. is the lower two floors. the d.r. filer dug a hole 16 feet from the rear yard, the original rear yard height down, and on the right of the top right picture, you can see

there's a four-foot wide staircase that goes down to a pit where he put the bedrooms on the lower floor of this a.d.u., which he then put an 18-foot-high fence, which i believe is beyond what is allowed, so it's basically impossible to get light into that pit. in this lower left-hand, you can see that it's physically impossible to actually see into the rear yard from our second floor deck, and it's actually in reverse. the privacy is really from the other house, the issues are from the other house. slide, please. so in summary, the d.r. filer has proposed outlandish ideas for problems that do not exist. there are no extraordinary impacts from the project that exists.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. pearlman, and as stated to the d.r. requester, you will have one minute of rebuttal. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star, three, and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin your public comment. >> hi, georgia schiutish. one minute. they decided to go for the [indiscernible] unaffordable, which was [indiscernible] at the time. they needed two appraisals, and even then, it was really close. the deep excavation, which contains this a.d.u., which seems to be the focus of the thing, was planned by the

requester to be a single-family home. i don't think that's something you can avoid looking at, and the depth of the excavation was obvious because it would create liveability issues. i don't know that those bedrooms down there, and if they are part of one unit or two, it's hard to tell from the pictures, but those bedrooms are not kosher. i wish i had more time because this project has an amazing history. thanks a lot. take care. bye. >> hello. my name is george [indiscernible] and i'm a neighbor of the family that owns 649 28 street. i'm calling in support of the project and respectfully ask that the commission take d.r.

we are looking forward to the mollers as neighbors for many years in their beautiful new home, so thank you in advance. >> hi. this is the d.r. filer, ravi [indiscernible]. am i allowed to speak during public time? >> clerk: actually, you are not, but you can use the one minute rebuttal time. >> hi. i'm jenna, and i'm also a neighbor who lives around the corner at 32 newberg street, and i'm calling in to express support for the renovation

taking place at 649 28 street. the moller family's plan is going to improve a family house, which is going to benefit everybody in the community. we found the mollers to be kind and honest neighbors, and they are exactly the kind of hard working family we should be supporting to improve their home, particularly when compared with speculative developers who are looking to maximize profits. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, we should take rebuttal. mr. mcmann. >> i'm here. can you hear me okay? >> clerk: we can. you have one minute. >> excellent. i would just like to correct,

my client is a hard working family, as well, no different than the muellers, and he's living in a smaller space because of an a.d.u. i didn't catch the last name, georgia, she talks about every project in the city. she's got sour grapes against every project in the city. i am trying to right a wrong here. please lower the house a few feet, takeoff the ridiculous gable roofs that are unnecessary, and i don't care about the subproperty's line windows. we are happy to close those off. just have the same sight lines that we were required to have along the back and the front. >> clerk: okay. if that concludes d.r., mr.

pearlman? >> thank you very much. i think the d.r. is utilizing this by asking us and my client to redesign our project to essentially get out of his way to not block his big views from his property line windows. he has cynically offered catered meals, yes, catered meals, to try to bribe. please approve the project as designed. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes rebuttals, the public hearing portion is closed, and commissioners, this d.r. is now before you.

>> president tanner: thank you. call on vice president moore. >> vice president moore: president tanner, are you there? i can't hear you. >> president tanner: thank you. i keep taking my head phones off. >> vice president moore: thank you. i think that the project is a sensitively designed project. when the adjoining project was designed a number of years ago, there was requests made to

bring the project into line with the projects that existed, so the challenge for mr. pearlman is to find that context in the presence of his large building, and i found that protecting the large windows very convincing. i am in full support and do not see the need for doing any modifications for this project. curious what our other commissioners have to say. >> president tanner: commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: barring no other comments, i just wanted to support vice president moore and make a motion to approve. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's no further comments from the commission, there is a motion and a second to not take d.r. and approve the project as

proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes unanimously 6-0, and will place us on item 10 for case number 2021-003638-drp at 450 myra way. this is also a discretionary view. >> thank you, mr. ionin. good afternoon again, president tanner, vice president moore, and members of the planning commission. the item before you is an initiated request for discretionary review of building permit number 2021.0324.7216 to construction

a rear horizontal addition to a two-story over basement, one-family residential building within an rh-1 zoning district and 40-k height and bulk district. the proposed facade is also inconsistent with the clearly defined character of the block face. her proposed alternative is to reduce the depth and redistribution the massing to the existing side yard to the north. to date, the department has received five letters in opposition and 11 letters in support of the project. the proposed addition aligns with the existing properties.

the staff sees no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer questions. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, david. d.r. requester, you have three

minutes. >> hello? >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. i'm mary fitzpatrick, and i do live at 444 myra way, adjacent to the south at 450 myra. thank you for your time today. also with me is steven whitney, who represents me and may speak later. there are five key points that i'd like to make. there are neighbors in support of me who filed letters in support of this project. i also want to acknowledge that the owner of 450 has made project changes to help address my concerns about openness. the set back of the proposed addition of my property was increased, and i very much appreciate that. yet the seven neighbors and i have concerns about the open space and secondarily about the

design of the facade. as slide number one shows, it does not address the shallow depth of 460 myra to the north. this image shows the open space boundary that would fit with the adjacent houses the large northside yard at 450 myra proposes to make the addition shallower in the back with only part of it in the side yard. this would minimize impact on mid block open space, and we ask that this alternative approach design be required. slide number three, please. our issue request this proposed facade design is about the sizes and horizontal orientation of the windows. they don't fit with the sizes

and vertical orientation of windows to the south of 450 myra, as shown here. last, i'd like to point out that one of the concerned neighbors who filed with me cowrote the [indiscernible] park designed giet lines. he noted that the proposed depth and facade design doesn't conform to those guidelines. we consider him an authority on those guidelines, and it shows the validity of our issues with it. finally, i'd like to point out that the d.r. analysis shows 11 supporters for the project, but none of them are knowledgeable on the subject law. we think this is significant and ask that you take note of this in considering the design request. thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: okay. if that concludes d.r.

requester's presentation, we can go to the applicant. >> [indiscernible] working from home since the pandemic started and work taking care of two children has not been easy. [indiscernible] on this page, we can see [indiscernible] next

slide, please. the mid block open space was also taken into consideration. i [indiscernible] rear elevation alignment. regardless of the [indiscernible], the building depth is the same as around 60 feet. our proposed building depth is 36 feet at the ground floor and 36.5 feet at the first floor and [indiscernible] next slide, please. regarding the block space -- next slide. regarding the block space, i took photos of the house down the street. stucco and siding were commonly used, and the window size

varies. [indiscernible] next slide [indiscernible]

yeah. >> clerk: okay. that concludes your presentation, then we should open up public comment. members of the public, you need to press star, three to be added to the queue, and through the chair, you'll each receive one minute. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. you have one minute, caller. >> my name is debra atkins, and i live directly across the street from 450, at 435 myra. thank you for allowing this forum so that neighbors could

have the opportunity to express their concerns. the 400 block of myra way consists of 34 homes. 450 myra, being semi detached, has the exceptional circumstance of abutting a narrow mid block open space and having a large open side yard, as has been explained. i would request that an alternative design be required which would make the addition shallower by utilizing a portion of that very rare commodity: a side yard. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, or good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bryan, and i've lived in the area for 40 years.

i generally support the project as it has been proposed. in the five years that i've lived in this area, the building at 450 myra has fallen into disrepair, and the previous owners did not take care of it. i support the new design although it is slightly larger from the street. there have been numerous homes in the immediate area that have undergone similar scale remodel and expansions, generally with success. i am happy to see the lee family in the neighborhood and would like to see the project move forward. [please stand by]

>> clerk: project sponsor you have you have one minute rebuttal. >> we blocked open space, it's not a clear line. analyzing the surrounding

neighbors, i believe we -- we respect open space. >> clerk: okay. that concludes project sponsor's rebuttal, commissioners, this matter is now before you. >> thank you, vice president moore. >> vice president moore: i have looked over multiple projects including the design guide. i find that this project very sensively designed. it's a modest project. i believe it is not trying to advertise itself being new and different to the contrary. i don't find merit in questioning the choice of

windows. i actually welcome and relatively calm street expression. there's little bit of variety when the window is just suddenly different. it's a shift in shape which is appropriate which is a larger horizontal expansion of the project. i'm in full support of it. >> president tanner: commissione r imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i do believe the disrespect block open space is what the d.r. filer trying to suggest. i like to make a not take the d.r. and approve. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: very good commissioners. seeing no further request to

deliberate from members of the commission. there's a motion that has been seconded to not take the project as proposed [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. your next item has been continued ief this concludes your hearing today. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we like to adjourn for peace between ukraine and russia. we hope that transpires. >> clerk: thank you for in president tanner.

>> restaurants will be open for take out only, but nonessential stores, like bars and gyms, will close effective midnight tonight. [♪♪♪]