d.r. requester. i think part of the concern was not just about privacy, but was a sense of being boxed in, and that condition might exacerbate that concern. >> commissioner fung: please repeat that again, mr. winslow. you were breaking up. >> yeah, sorry about that. on behalf of mr. temple's concerns, not only was privacy a concern, but being boxed in was part of his concern. i feel the imposition of a six-foot high privacy screen at that second level would exacerbate the issue with respect to his feeling boxed in. i don't know how to, you know, request his opinion on that at this point, if he is available, but i don't think that would be an ideal solution from his standpoint. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: yeah, i don't -- >> commissioner fung: i don't think we can have it two ways. >> commissioner johnson: so i was thinking it would be good to have flexibility. many people put plantings or plants as a way to provide privacy. i think that might be more kind to ev

d.r. requests. the first, peter temo, the adjacent neighbor to the west of the proposed project, who is concerned that the height and depth of the building is out of scale with the existing building scale at the rear and mid-walk open space and does not provide adequate setbacks. and it impacts the light to the adjacent properties. and, three, that the decks at every level would be intrusive to privacy. his proposed alternative is to match the neighboring building at 240 el camino del mar, limiting the ground level extension to nine feet. the second level to 3.5 feet, and provide setbacks on both sides, and elimination of any windows facing 240 el camino del mar, and providing tall plants as a screen for privacy. i'm sorry, those were the comments from both mark hei heineke and peter tempo. and they're adjacent neighbors on both sides of the subject property. tz department has received 69 letters in opposition, and no letters in support. the department's residential design team as reviewed century t

d.r. requesters. kevin wong, the adjacent neighbor to the south and chao of 619 11th avenue, neighbor to the north. they are concerned the proposed project violates the residential design guidelines related to neighborhood character, light, air, privacy and scale and access to the mid-block open space. the proposed alternatives are to reduce the extension of the second floor by three to five feet, stagger the windows facing their properties and make the sidewalls to the deck transparent. to date, department has received no letters in support or in opposition to the project. because the extent configuration of the proposed rear addition including the four foot and six foot side set backs, echoes the pattern of massing found on the two adjacent properties that preserves access to the mid-block open space, light, air and privacy, staff's recommendation is to not take d.r. and as the project does not present any exceptional or extraordinary conditions. this concludes my presentation. and i'm happy to answ

d.r. requester's concerns. don't worry -- next slide, david. there were two main issues brought up during that meeting. the d.r. requester expressed privacy concerns, and expressed privacy concerns about the scale of the addition. so to address these concerns, we proposed an angled roof and this addressed the massing of the third story. we are in constant back. >> clerk: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: okay. i -- this is an interesting design. i think i -- i agree with commissioner moore's comment about the 15-foot set back and understanding it, especially if it would help alleviate some of the impacts of the neighbors, shifting from a 10 to 15-foot set back, but i don't feel strongly, so i would entertain a motion. >> i wonder, there's two things that combined together to maybe make the liberation of the addition scale. you know, one is the comment that, i think, from commissioner fung about the discordant roof form. the other is the set back. there is an ability for that roof to be lowered to some extent and also keeping the ad

d.r. requester, but we ask that it be as short as possible. all of us are adjusting to the new reality of video conference hearings, and it's unclear if it'll be in different in a month, so we have to have a hearing other than that. the project has been proposed since 2017, and we need an opportunity to present before the commission. thank you for your time. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audie raun. i am here to ask you to postpone the project for 350 san jose off. the public deserves to have their 311 notification. i don't know if there's enough time to discuss individual errors and omissions that the planning should have caught, but basically, we need more than 30 days, and the project needs to be renotified. so i'm asking the commission to do the right thing. renotify the project with the correct drawings, and 30 days is not going to make that happen. also, we believe that the lockdown is not going to be on indefinitely. at some point, we are going to have to come out, and hopefully, we will

d.r. request for both properties for 25 and for 27. at this hearing the commission took d.r. and approved the subject permits with the condition that it revert the existing building to its previous condition by restoring the three-storey bay and finding condition is imposed on the new construction permit that acknowledges the bay restoration. the fact that the bay is to remain, required the adjacent new construction to be designed itself because that was now encouraging over the property line. and it's within the billable area. so a couple issues that have been raised here that primarily is the question of the reconstruction without the windows. and the debate on what exactly does the planning commission mean by their decision. and ultimately the applicant submitted the plans as they are now and at the present time department staff reviewed them. the planners working on this reviewed it with the zoning administrator and the zoning administrator found it could be consistent with the planning commission's decision. the fact that requiring the restoration of the windows would re

d.r. request and approved the project as proposed. a couple of issues that have been raised here, one in regard to the settlement agreement. maybe i'll address that first. and this board is no stranger to settlement agreements as arguments for precedent. i know certainly the planning commission had an item, it was appealed to this board -- >> in the same neighborhood. >> where the planning commission had basically the only finding for taking d.r. and denying the project as proposed was they relied on a previous settlement agreement. i think this board rightly found they didn't make independent findings with code compliance. we don't enforce the private agreements. the party is not part of those and does not enforce it. there may be other land use reasons for making a decision, but enforcing a private agreement cannot be the sole reason for making a land use decision. it's been argued that somehow that decision, which did inaccurately show the height limit, that should carry on. we have to look at every permit and ply the planning -- a