the formal review, we do differ that to part two. we don't want to charge the police department with reviewing a security plan that does not get approved. we do consult with the police department. >> this is not the first time i have been through this. i actually have a state license from the bcc, grower delivery service, we are just turning it into a storefront. so i followed all the guidelines , and you know how hard it is to get a state license and we actually have a provision on it. we have to provide security plans, we have to provide -- it is a long list, as you can imagine, and we have to provide everything. it is like 89 items. the actual b.c.c. in the office of cannabis knows where everything is out. they are the only people who know where this place is added know where the product is at and everything, because they require us to submit that.

>> thank you very much. planner christians in, one last question. is there anything about this building in terms of its penetrable it to you as the residents have brought up, that wouldn't sessa take any changes to the way the business is laid out? because we heard that there were multiple entrances and garages and things, and perhaps the one on mission street between 15th and 16th has just one entrance can you tell us about you'll -- you are familiar with this. is there any other requirements that you could or would be able to determine would be needed? >> in terms of where customers have access and where the business has access, that is something that is reviewed as part of the police's review of the security plan. we are aware that it is a unique condition in that you have a ground-floor which has the primary access, i believe another access, and then a second level that also has access to common areas. we do expect, as i said, part of

the difficulty is that this does carry at a later phase, but we have discussed that there is a need to have particular attention paid to have the security is managed with those doorways which provide a barrier between the business and the common areas of the building. there shouldn't be a case where a customer or someone else needs to enter a common area in order to get at the building. there is a primary entrance that leads directly onto the street. there is not a case where the typical -- >> the typical storefront kind of thing. >> yeah. >> thank you. commissioner fong? >> mr. christianson, just to confirm the situation, i don't know if you know this information, the commercial unit is part of the h.o.a. or is it separated? >> my understanding is it is all covered under one h.o.a.

>> one h.o.a. for the entire building. >> i receive information anecdotally so i can't confirm things, but i have heard that there was some discussion of splitting the h.o.a. because it is not typical for commercial units and residential units to be managed under one version, it is more typical for them to have some separation, but my understanding, and i am sure the h.o.a. can opine more with the integrity. >> the commercial unit is owned by the regional developer? >> that is my understanding. >> perhaps i will ask that question of the h.o.a. president just to confirm those two questions. >> there are 12 units total, three commercial units, and they are all under the same h.o.a., single h.o.a.

>> and the three commercial units are owned by the developer >> the developer owns three commercial units and one residential unit. >> commissioner hillis? >> a question for mr. christianson. do we, under these new rules opine on consumption on premises or not? >> consumption is considered a excess reuse retail. if the use is subject to a conditional use authorization, the commission has full discretion to limit the licenses that a sponsor can obtain from the department of public health as that accessory use. previously we used to just discussed his gumption -- consumption is a generality, but

given the department of public health has these three separate license types, you know, we would advise if smoking is an issue, which it sounds like it is at issue, it doesn't sound -- i would like to sponsor to confirm that, but the planning commission can certainly impose a commission restricting the youth cannot obtain a permit for on-site smoking. >> what are the three categories again? >> there are two of them which are basically not smoking, one of them allows for consumption of products such as edibles that are prepared off-site, basically prepackaged for purchase, and they can consume it in there. the other allows the same thing, but allows for on-site limited preparation so they can heat something up. they can do minor preparation as part of that rather than giving you a packaged product. only the third type, which i believe is typed a allows for

on-site smoking as well as those other benefits. >> explain the second type again >> it allows for consumption of products which are not smoking, but edibles with limited on-site mac preparation such as, you know, heating up something, heating up a brownie. >> what if i was going to do it through an i.v.? i'm just kidding. >> this application is for all three? there is some confusion with that. i have been on here -- i don't think we have ever had an on-site, i know they exist, but in recent memory, there hasn't been in on-site consumption smoking. >> the commission approved this with on-site consumption just a couple weeks ago. [laughter] >> stop embarrassing me in front of everybody.

>> it is something the commission can certainly condition. >> yeah, i would definitely, if this got approved, support -- the project sponsor need to -- i think we should condition approval on that, so that's it. i am generally supportive. i get that we have had anxiety over these through the years, honestly when they were m.c.d. his, and now when they are legal but we just haven't had the problems that people think we are going to have over these cannabis retail spaces, and certainly there's apothecary him that has two spots that have residential above, so they work. i haven't seen it where we have on-site smoking consumption, so i would be comfortable with a condition of approval that would disallow that portion.

>> commissioner moore? >> i am concerned about the gap between the owner of the commercial unit having a supportive relationship with the people living above. i'm interested to talk to the h.o.a. attorney to see if he is still here. in other cases, we had another case in front of this commission probably a year and a half ago. the owner, the h.o.a. for the commercial unit is different then the h.o.a. for the residential unit because the terms of those are not compatible. one speaks to residential uses, and residential versus commercial. the case that we had was a soup kitchen, and on market street who wanted to move into the bottom of a residential building

somewhere on mission, and the homeowner did not want to have it. but in that particular case, the residential h.o.a. did not have any right of first refusal other than protesting that they felt because of the social impact, it did not work for them. it was prejudiced, prejudice, prejudice. in this particular case, we are creating a situation where the h.o.a. can make it very difficult for this new owner to run a successful business. because the h.o.a. will somewhat have -- somewhat have influence over what the commercial unit is doing. is that correct? >> everything you said is correct. >> so i'm kind of interested in the business plan of the policy of the h.o.a. and the residential building did not separate out the commercial part

under a different h.o.a. structure, under a different structure in order for those things to work with each other. >> i have no comment since i have not spoken to the developer the developer does have an attorney and we have been in discussions with that attorney. >> i am just raising this as a question because if we are supporting this business, then we also want to ensure that this business is successful and give it the best support we can muster. i am prepared to support it, i am concerned that the structure in which we are supporting it is not very conducive to creating a harmonious relationship between the commercial and the residential uses. that is what i am really concerned about.

in our previous case, we were able to do that. in this case, we do not have leverage, because the nature of these, which were restrictive and vindictive, is very much working against the successful pursuit of business in such a mixed situation. >> if i may, the challenge here is that that is a private transaction. the h.o.a. is completely private the city can't be part of that agreement. i understand your point that if you do approve it, it still might not happen or might go through some other difficult challenges, but it is a separate issue from the land use approval >> okay. >> my point was almost the same as commissioner moore's. if this turns into purely a legal battle, then neither side

is going to win, especially starting a business. if they can't come to an agreement between their uses, then i think it is a very difficult place to start a business, so i am not supportive of an approval at this point, unless they can resolve that between themselves. >> understanding that it is a private situation. >> so i am ready to approve this project today. i think, you know, it is a compliant project. i think that this is -- the issue is not a planning issue, it is a land-use issue, you know , i do wonder if there had been other commercial uses before in this building, and that's probably why, you know, the developer should have separated the two h.o.a.

i would think about that if i was a business owner, if you want to get into this, if that is conducive to your success, but, you know, this is a legal business in san francisco, and we do have very high -- a very high bar for somebody to start these businesses, and, you know, i am supportive. commissioner koppel? >> thank you to both sides are being patient with us. we want to make sure we do the right thing. i will make a motion to approve the project - the type eight consumption. >> second. >> commissioner richards? >> can i add to that motion that we have a one-year look back on this project to see the impact of the business? >> yes. >> can we do an informational look back versus and m.o.? a presentation, i think it is this important.

i could support it with that. >> and that is after opening. >> after opening, yeah. >> do i hear a second? >> i seconded it. >> very good. is that it? >> yes. >> very good, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter to approve without a type a license and to require an informational presentation one year from the operation. on that motion... [roll call] >> so moved, that motion passes -- >> if there's a fire in that building, they have no insurance >> you are out of order, ma'am. >> how can you do that. >> i don't care, if there is a

fire in that building, they have no insurance. [laughter] >> we will take a five-minute break. i would advise that you can talk to staff if you have any questions. >> okay. , good late afternoon. [laughter]. >> welcome back to the planning commission for thursday, may 23 rd, 2019. we left off under your regular calendar -- calendar, but before we get there, i am pleased to inform you that under the discretionary review calendar, item 19 at -- the discretionary review has been withdrawn. >> yay. >> for anyone here who may still be interested in 400 to visit darrow, that item has been continued. that will place us on item 17.

1370 wallace avenue, conditional use authorization. >> good evening, commissioners. michael christianson, department staff. the item before you is the request for a conditional use authorization to establish a 680 square-foot agriculture use at 1370 wallace avenue with an existing two-story warehouse building located within the p.d.r. core zoning district and a height and bulk district. the project includes the physical modification of the building to align it with the side lot line. it is an irregularly shaped lot located along a former rail would right of way, and existing building overlaps over that property line. the project would realign the building wall, reducing the size from 6,340 square feet, 260180 square feet. the project sponsor is an existing temporary permit holder

operating with authorization from the city's office of cannabis. the operator has been operating at the site since june of 2015. it was previously operated as a metal fabrication plant which vacated part -- prior to being used established by the property owner. the project only proposes an industrial agriculture use at this time to allow the cultivation of cannabis. other related uses such as light manufacturing, delivery sales, and business-to-business transactions may be added later. manufacturing using the use of volatile organic compounds may only be added with an additional conditional use authorization in cannabis -- i cannabis retail could only be added if operated in conjunction with other production uses on-site subject to neighborhood notice and in compliance with the 600-foot rule. the project underwent neighborhood notification and we received one call from a nearby property owner with some clarifications, but not expressing any position.

it also went to the bayview hunter's point citizens advisory committee and received a recommendation for approval and endorsement from the c.a.c. on january 16th, 2019. as a project complies with the planning code and policies of the general plan, staff recommends approval. this concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions >> thank you. do we have a project sponsor? good evening. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am harvey hacker, i am the project architect. i don't have anything to add to mr. christianson's clear report, except to tell you that i have the building owner and the industrial agriculture tenant also here, so if you have questions for any of the three of us, we are prepared to answer them.

heavy utility use versus the building department which they'll route it to p.u.c. for water and a couple of things on title 24 but not in terms of anything related to t.v. panels for solar because they use a lot of juice for these uses. >> we are use much more power and a lot more water. it's not something that we have regulations to rely on to impose

conditions beyond the standard conditions of the building code but if the commission so desires, we can work with the office of cannabis to identify some potential measures to that regard. >> president fung: it makes sense to me. >> so what i think it's a good discussion to have it it hasn't come up before but i think we should take a look at it and industry wide or if there are other high energy users. it would be interesting to see the numbers and figures on whether how much more per square foot they do use of water and power. otherwise, i would say this an appropriate project and i move to approve. >> second. >> just to follow-up on commissioner hillis' comment, this business has been around in this location since 2015. so there is nothing really new

here. >> i would just add to that idea, thank you commissioner fung for bringing it up. it would be great if you would work with the office of cannabis and also with the san francisco public utilities commission specifically workforce opportunities that underscore equity in this neighborhood. it's something that would be of high importance and also you could probably fund it. it would be great to work with them. >> there's nothing further. there's a motion to approve this matter. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> richard. >> com. >> melgar. >> it passes unanimously 7-0. as previous stated, item 18 has been continued and item 19 has been withdrawn bringing us to our final item.

20-18d.r.p. and 237 court land avenue. dis correction ardiscretionary . >> good evening, commissioners and president melgar. david winslow staff architect. the item before you say public initiated request for a discretionary for 20-18.0607 to demolish a one-storey commercial building and construct a four-storey mixed use with three units over a ground floor commercial space. no on site park asking proposed. the building historic resource is a category c. it's mary of 218 courtland avenue across the street neighbor to the south of the proposed project is concerned

with three main issues. first, the scale of the proposed four-storey building is out of scale with the character of the district on courtland street. and the light and shadowing impacts to the adjacent residents, the massing of the rear of the building will reduce air and light to the neighborhood's properties and privacy. the location of decks at the second level and the roof will interest viewintroduce views ine areas that will impact their privacy. the proposed alternatives are to limit the high to three-storeys, provide residential open space rather than on the roof and third screen the open space from direct view of neighboring yards. the public comment to date, the department has received 18 letters in opposition. and seven letters in support of the project.

staff's recommendation in light of the d.r. requesters concerns the department has rereviewed the project with respect to the urban design guidelines and the issues related to scale and mass by the d.r. are exceptional or extraordinary, specifically the depth of proposed building extends to the rear-yard line which is well past the depth of the adjacent building to the west and due to the key lot situation to the east, and the depth of the proposed building access is unduly curtailed to 235 court land, the adjacent neighborhood to the east and the property at 260, 262. it's typical in these situations to ask for sculpt of the rear mass that impacts the access to mid block open space in key lot development pattern.

however, as the project is code forming and the zoning permits three residential units along with the desire for ground floor special space, staff has taken the housing accountable ability into consideration. staff recommending the commission take th take the d.rd reduce the massing at the rear for appropriate building scale to the mid block open space by reducing the building depth by six feet at the second, third and fourth floors. this can be accomplished without reducing the number of bedrooms or dwelling units many of the deck should be held back five feet to reduce privacy impacts to the adjacent rear yards and properties and the roof deck should be held off five feet from the adjacent property line at edge of the light well to also reduce privacy impacts to the adjacent building to the west. additionally, the stair penthouse at the roof should be

reduced to only the minimum height and width required as necessary required by the building and fire code. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. winslow. we will now hear from the d.c. >> hand them to me. >> thank you, very much. my name is chat hamilton and i'm a resident at 202cortland avenue. i'm here to speak ton behalf of my neighbors who oppose this

project. first, i want to say that we support additional housing. especially more affordable housing. but we believe the four-storey project such as this has very negative impacts on cortland avenue and on our neighborhood. first of all, it's dramatically out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. it's more than double the average height of other buildings in our neighborhood. we fear it would lead to increased demolition of existing one and two-storey buildings in our thriving neighborhood commercial area. because of the unique street and block grid, the project will have extreme negative impacts on its neighbors. impacts of privacy and massing, shadows. we request the commission limit this project to three-storeys. this would lessen the project's negative impact and align with

the story limit of new projects. three-storeys could be achieved in several ways. by designing three smaller and more affordable housing units or by eliminating the ground floor retail space. currently there are 10 empty or soon-to-be empty retail spaces on cortland avenue, we do need another retail space. let's review some of the negative impacts of the project. as i said, this surrounding residential districts are primarily two-storey dwellings. currently they're limited in height to 30 feet. you can see the pattern of the lots in bernal heights is different from the neighborhood the controls were written to address. the subject lot in the nc2 district overlaps the small scale residentses to the east of it so it will block afternoon

sun. 237cortland blocks the yard and overlaps half the rear yard. this leads to significant privacy impacts on adjacent residentses with rear yards and windows facing into the mid block. i think some of the most significant impacts of the proposed project effect 260-262. these impacts are significant. currently at the equal what knox it reaches the rear windows until almost 5:30 p.m. with the proposed four-storey project bocana would lose an hour and 20 minutes of sunlight on the day when the rest of us

enjoy sunlight until after 7:00 p.m. sunlight to this dwelling will end at 4:05 p.m. however, if it were reduced to a throw-storey project, lots of sunlight would be reduced to half. instead of loosing an hour and 20 minutes, they would lose 40 minutes. and to them that's significant. the impact of the proposed four-storey mass on the mid block open space is also dramatic. this perspective is taken from our solar model and it shows the sense of outdoor space in the mid block. you have it in your handouts. this is taken from the first one at 260 bocana.

this is the massing. the proposed project sits less than 18 feet from the rear windows of 260 bocana and looms over 40 feet high. this perspective shows how reducing the project to three-storeys would reduce impact of massing on neighborhood dwellings. we do think the project will still allow development of throw dwelling units, smaller more affordable units or eliminating an unneeded retail space. it will lesson privacy and shadow impacts on it neighbors and it won't set a precedent that will encourage demolition with loss of affordable housing and retail space. it will be better fit for the character of the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. do we have any public comment in

support of the d.r. requester? please, come on up. lineup on the left-hand side. >> my name is jason rigs i'm the owner of 260 bocan street. instead of just talking about the mass 18 feet from my house. the property line, as you can see, goes all the way across my backyard. all of the light in my house and the lower unit comes from lights in the back of my property facing west. the thing that brought me to buying that property was wanting to create a beautiful garden cottage out of something that was basically urban concrete. and i have succeeded in doing that. i put a lot of blood, sweat and

tears. i never thought i would be a homeowner in san francisco on a non-profit salary but i managed to do it. i put my time energy and my savings into the house to make the house i want it to be. the shadow impacts for me are extraordinary. a year and a half ago i had two heart attacks. surgery and a pulmonary am bolism and now i'm on disability. i spend my time at home. i spend most of my time in my garden when i can get outside. that's how i use my property and my home. i understand the need for more housing units until the city. i really do. but they can achieve three units in that building with a three-storey building. even the three-storey building is going to have huge impact on the live ability of my home. to me the three-storey is more than a compromise. it's a change from the way i experience my home right you no.

i beg you to look at the option of making it a two or three-storey something, three-storey building. something in line with the neighborhood. it will impact two to three makeneighbors up to the north fm me and this is an 40-foot wall as far as i am from you right now 18 feet, 40 feet high. the other thing is obviously privacy. people will literally on a back deck that's being proposed be able to stand right at top of my fence line and look directly into my backyard and my home. and that is greatly effecting the live ability of the home and also the other thing is that i understand the need for more units but i think we shouldn't be destroying the liveability of our neighbors' homes to build more units. i think that's what this project is proposing to do.

>> thank you, very much, sir. next speaker, please. >> i'm john ryan at 262 bocana, the upstairs unit. i can echo most of what everyone has said already. honestly, my use of the backyard is similar. we have time and money that we've put in making what has been just a slab of concrete into a garden with water and a fire pit and grill and an actual extension to an already small home to basically create a living room that now i'm not going to feel comfortable living in. you may have noticed i've been working on a baby blanket through this so thank you having long enough discussions i can get a lot of this done. i would normally be sitting out in my backyard in the sun listening to the fountain,

working on a project such as this. i am 100% sure that once that building goes up at the scale it's done, i'm not going to feel comfortable being out in my own backyard. the way the deck is as described, it will go literally here. people's feet will be here looking down on my, again, from the same distance you are. i am concerned about my privacy, my comfort, my liveability. again, to echo what everyone has said, we have too many empty commercial spaces already. that number is going up. it's a trend that is currently upward bound. why do we have to put more commercial space taz going to be empty. i ask you, please, think about this. think about the nature of the neighborhood and what we're trying to create as a community in our own neighborhood and in the city itself.

please, reconsider what should be here and what can also help the city move forward for affordable housing. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi name is mary and i filed the d.r. -- >> your time to speak was at the beginning. >> what was that? >> your time to speak was during the presentation. can i go as a community. >> you can have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is edward houston. i live on the next block. i've lived in the neighborhood since 1992. i'm very concerned about the amount of housing in the city. i do think that this building is

out of scale with our neighborhood and is being -- i'm very tempted to think that the commercial space is being used to build the lot and use that to get to sneak in every square inch of building that can be built on that lot. i just would urge you to consider the character of bernal heights and also what is not in scale in that neighborhood. thank you, very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is suzanne. i live in the block where this building is going to be built. it's going to be built at the end of the block and there is a beautiful, green, corridor up and down between bocana and bon view so everybody lives at this fence level will have the

wonderful ability to see a green space and we will look at a skyscraper. i'm here to talk about the support ability of the neighborhood and the infrastructure. i think we need housing in bernal heights and it's true in san francisco and the objective is to keep the project and all the new building along cortland a at the size that is well within the character and scale of the neighborhood. at the same time, provide affordable housing for the community. we must consider the safety and well-being of people who use the streets and resources of this residential and commercial area. bernal heights is one of the few areas in the city that has a unique village feel with its narrow, winding streets and tight density of houses. the lots, most of the lots are

25 by 75. unfortunately, some one-storey buildings and earthquake shacks have been recently reconfigured no one family dwellings and luck row homes and that's also happening, there's a trend of that happening with duplexes and two-storey buildings. so, this kind of development does not help and we're hoping that the development along cortland is going to help ease the housing problems. we welcome and encourage development along that corridor as long as it affords that housing and not overburden the area. building a larger than code structure opens the door for other developers to build massive buildings that threaten the character of the neighborhood and create a problem of congestion and issues of safety. the big issue here that i want

to call attention to is a two-lane street that runs east t and west between mission street and bay shore boulevard. it's a tiny compared to the others in san francisco lincoln boulevard, et cetera. and it's 60 feet wide and it has residential and meter parking on both sides. parking is tight. it serves mostly walking people who live there. the many visitors we receive a arrive using modes of transportation, however, the public transportation, which is a 24 that services bernal heights -- >> thank you, ma'am. >> your time suppose. >> does not support the area. it's not efficient and we're not a hub, we're not a transportation hub and so it doesn't help us get on and off the hill.

it encouraged more automobile use. >> thank you, very much. next speaker, please. my name is robin macky and i live on bocana street around the corner and mary and the project. i think what suzanne was about to say was the bus, i at this there are two a approved projects on cortland right now and boy, what kind of interruption is there going to be with this third one. my goodness. that should be taken into consideration. really, the thing that concerns me is the character of our neighborhood. i move to bernal in '87, i'm not against development or change but this is such a drastic change. even right now, the realtors are advertising the bernal village because of the human scale. the human scale of two-storey

buildings along the corridor. i'm just concerned that this is going to set a precedent for four-storeys and just one by one and it will just be a canyon. and that is why i'm up here right now. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening, commissioners, i am a neighbor across the street from the proposed development there's no sea level right at issue here. aside from that, my support multi-use development across the city. it's a great thing and i like the creative development i want to echo some of the other sentiments which i believe that this is fundamentally out of character of the neighborhood. if you read the zoning it's also the guideline is that development should be in character of the neighborhood and follow the local design pattern so as you saw in the photos, it's one, two and throw-storey buildings. this proposed building would be the first four-storey building in the neighborhood.

my concern is that is going to create a precedent for development along the strip so some of the issues we heard about sunlight and privacy, it's not just this block. if it's cited to continue develop other one-storey, two-storey buildings and four-storey buildings the neighborhood will change. probably wouldn't be a problem if you were like mission bay, you could put large buildings there but it was pointed by the propofoprevious speaker, there t of additional traffic and my concern is we don't have the infrastructure to support that level of development. i think the other thing this is going to do is be a pattern. i know the slippery slope is tough but it will establish a market for these buildings. it's a price of business model and whether it's developers there's such an incertain tive. who wouldn't love to just flip a house and turn a one-storey building into a four-storey building and make four million bucks out of it. the economic incentive will

force this forward. so it's my concern really is just not establishing a precedent here that will ultimately degrade and destroy our neighborhood. thank you very much for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm marty. can i submit 200 signatures for the last building that you voted to buildup. i didn't bring 100 up with me today. they would go along with the 20 letters opposed to what you are asking to do. please, we need your help. we need your courage. we want housing. the three-storey building that went up, the business has been closed for over a year. the apartments ran for $3,500.

i ask you, can you new teacher afford an apartment. can the man or woman who comes back from afghanistan or where this crazy president sends people afford an apartment? can the clerk afford an apartment? no. we have many one-storey buildings on our streets. we're also a green city. you notice two houses, we've got a lot of one-storey buildings that are big. if you put four-storeys and you open the gate, the man and woman who spent on solar back there -- their investment will not be radically improved. we have many one-storey buildings. i ask you, i plead with you, we need you to be courageous.

it's four that seems to be in. what is in is density and height. slow it down. cortland you can slow it down because we need time. you need to hear from the community. some of you know our community. come see. we want a livable community with diversity. we want the mechanic. we want the bus driver. we want the domestic. we want all these people who are there to be able to stay. so, please, help us. three-storeys, affordable, not another empty business. thank you. thank you. any other public comment in support of d.r. requester. we will now hear from the project sponsor.

good afternoon, commissioners or good evening. my name is amy lee and i'm here to represent the project sponsor, eli seagull. before jeremy provides his overview i want to go over our -- [ please stand by ]

>> however, our development is consistent with providing viable commercial space and much-needed housing. it is in scale to the nearby buildings and within the zoning and planning guidelines. like every neighbourhood, it is evolving and must continue to evolve to ensure that it absorbs its share of increasing housing supply. >> hello, commissioners.

i will try that again. commissioners, my name is jeremy , i am the architect. if you could give me the computer, please. the d.r. requester showed a spot , a photo from this spot, but looking in the other direction and the two-story portion of portland. if you look to the west, this is the four story portion. on the left is a four-story building, buildings on the left, and next to a four-story building. the project site is 1980 square feet in the burnell neighborhood it allows us to utilize the density of our h3 district across the street. the height and bulk is 40 x. the d.r. requester and their filing referenced the special use district. that was created in 1991 to limit height in residential areas, but that is specifically

not in the cortland and see two district. the subject and adjacent block faces have a mix of commercial and residential units, neighboring from 2-4 stories, up to four dwellings. the existing building is a two-story commercial space with an unused garage and one half of the market. mostly serving as they're back of house needs. the project is to develop the historic building and construct a new four-story building with three dwellings over retail. no vehicle parking is proposed. instead, the commercial space will be provided with communicating openings to potentially rejoin with the market. each dwelling has three bedrooms and measures approximately 1100 square feet. we are proposing a 25% rear yard at the residential levels with comment roof deck for the required open space. the project is fully code compliant with no variances or waivers.

we held our preapplication meeting with 11 neighbors 12 months ago. since then, we have had three additional meetings in december, january and february, as well as with the planning department two weeks ago. during these conversations, we discussed the following changes. the stair penthouse is now removed, second floor deck is reduced in size with privacy screening up to 8 feet tall, we will pay for and close the neighbor's property line windows and pay for new lighting in those rooms. the fourth floor rear corner is pulled in 14 feet by 3 feet. the façade design is updated with high-quality materials, and other things that have been offered but not accepted is to relocate the roof deck towards the front, or recess the fourth floor in the front. in conclusion, we are fully code compliant with the zoning and do not have any variances or exceptions. key lots happen all over town.

this project was reviewed and approved by the department, and we believe it does not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstance. thank you. >> thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. and if the other d.r. requester wanted to speak, now would be your turn. whatever you guys want. >> you get two minutes. you get to decide how to split it up. >> i saw some headshaking, and i heard once again the proponent talk about four-story buildings. first of all, there is not a four-story building next to the subject property, it is a three-story building. there is an existing four-story building built in the eighties directly across from the project in the our h3 district. as a result of that construction , much of the

neighborhood was down zoned, and the height limit was reduced from 30 feet to 30 feet. that building could not be built today, but it should not be used as an example to justify this over scale project. if we go to section 711, it is pretty clear. it says the intent of the small-scale district control is to provide for mixed-use buildings which approximate or slightly exceed the standard development pattern in the and see two district. this is not slightly exceeding the standard development pattern of a one and two story neighborhood district. i don't understand how this project was approved under the planning code. we believe this will cause tremendous negative effects, but it doesn't have to be that way. a three-story project can still have three units of housing, it will be smaller, more affordable , it will have much less shadow and privacy impacts on the neighbors, it won't set a

precedent encouraging demolition in the and see two district -- >> you have 30 seconds if you want to let her speak. >> my one point is they posted on their walls they would be going out of business by the end of july. this is one of the reasons we were thinking maybe a three-story building, three residences, would be a better alternative for this project. it is something that the neighbors will be very welcoming , and i think everybody would love to have that rather than another empty storefront. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor? you have two minutes. >> let's see, so, other things we wanted to talk about, so this is the first we are hearing about the proposed six-foot cutback in the rear.

david and i did discuss a few things about reshaping the building, which is how we propose the notch on the fourth floor. we believe that the six-foot reduction would drop the unit size to about 950 square feet. so we did two exhibits here that i didn't quite get to yet. this exhibit is showing the density in the neighborhood based on the square footage of the units. right now, at 1100 square feet, we are right in the median. if this were to drop to 950, we would be in the lower third of the area per unit, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to fit three bedrooms on this given the lot size is only 22 feet wide. i think amy wants to talk briefly about the markets. >> in fact, angela is eager.

this project has been taking so long, it has been two years since we purchased it. she is eager and had asked supervisor running's office to intercede once the permits are approved to get it expedited because she does want to expand and do a quick service restaurant on that area, and that way she can serve as the meat supply. people aren't cooking, and people tend to grab to go. >> okay. thank you. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> a question for mr. winslow. the issue around -- i like the proposal of the 6 feet, because of the extreme air exceptional circumstances that staff recommends, the project sponsors that it is almost impossible to do the bedroom count. can you comment on that?

>> may i have the overhead, please? thank you. be cognizant of the acute fording -- the housing accountability act. we are locating three bedrooms and three units. that doesn't say we can't look at other spaces in a three-bedroom units that are dispensable, such as bathrooms. in this case, this diagram proposes losing this bathroom. >> talk into the microphone, please. >> i will. here is a proposal with the bathroom and the master bedroom suite. -- bathroom outside the master bedroom suite, the master bedroom suite. elimination of that bedroom and relocation of a bathroom into the master bedroom suite yields the master bedroom suite, same number of bathrooms -- same number of bedrooms, a six-foot reduction on all three floors because the floors are similar. >> one other question, mr. winslow, the commercial

space on the first floor goes all the way to the very back of the lot. why not just make the 6 feet go all the way down to the ground? , which really gives them -- >> that is possible. again, a code complying, commercial space is allowed to go to the full lot coverage. >> right. i think it makes up for some -- >> there is another reason why that might be impractical from a code perspective, which is the rear yard open space for the residential use must be at the first floor of residential use, so putting the rear yard at the rear of the commercial space would dissociate it. >> got it. the deck, the change in the deck length was what from what we thank you said the department recommends reducing the deck on the second floor, which is the fourth floor of the residential. >> basically a 5-foot permit around all building edges on