floor we want to keep these one bedroom men um units to maintain the affordability um if we you
know did one unit per floor of course that would have to be necessarily two or three bedroom units
And that was a discussion that was had with community and ultimately understood that the size of the unit now that they're because they're combined is to one big unit comfortably fits one bedroom units that are not unusual in size in any way.
And as such, we ask that the board grant this variance and allow us to hopefully help revitalize this property, which is in a pretty bad condition, and support this commercial corridor.
With me, I had a representative from the owners, Mr. Tommy Lepore.
He did message me saying that he got kicked off and he was having trouble logging back on on his phone.
So I would check to see if he's on and I'll ask him to raise his hand if he can adopt
and affirm my testimony.
But if he can, I would ask the board to recognize that he would adopt and affirm my testimony
as an officer of the court.
There are no hands up at this time.
So as an officer of the court, we would accept what you're saying.
thank you very much i also have the architect if the board has any question design questions
as well but i'll wait to see if the board has any questions does the board have any questions no vice
chair okay we have one calling user please unmute yourself and please wait for madam chair
I think there are, this is Tiffany Green from Concerned Citizens Appointment.
Hi, this is Tiffany Green from Concerned Citizens Appointment, RCO.
Mr. Patil, is this who you're expecting?
No, I think Ms. Green is a representative from an affected RCO.
I'm sorry about that. I do have another hand up. Balfour, is that your client, Mr. Bertull?
Sorry, I didn't catch that name. It should be Tommy Lepore, L-E-P-O-R-E. But I think the board
already recognized he would adopt in the firm. So for the sake of time, I think we can move on from
him and the board has no questions no vice chair correct
planning commission i'm sorry this is time i'm i'm trying to speak
yes they do have testimony if we can allow that okay i didn't know
Yes, they do have testimony, if we can allow that.
Okay, I didn't know there was anybody raising their hands.
Is anyone out there virtually raising their hand?
Ms. Green, you can unmute yourself. You're free to speak.
Thanks, Tony.
All right, we have another hand up. We have Balfour. Please unmute yourself and please
wait for Madam Chief.
Hello? Yes. Hello. Yes.
is there anyone in the virtual world but there can you please raise your hand if you would
like to testify on mr burtel's case there were three hands up i'm gonna try to unmute them again
Okay. Thanks Fatina. No problem. Please unmute yourself and please wait for Madam Chair.
Chris Davis can you unmute yourself and speak please. Yes my name is Chris Davis D-A-V-I-S.
i'm a resident of point breeze at 2118 reed street thank you do you swear in front of me to tell the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do and i apologize this is my first meeting of this sort
so i hope it's okay that the community speaks right now in this process is that correct yes
so you may proceed thank you um i uh thought that the revisioning of the the building is much better
However, one thing I am concerned about is that, as you saw in the pictures of Point Breeze Avenue, all the other buildings nearby are two stories, and on the corner, they are three stories tall.
This building effectively would be the tallest building on Point Breeze Avenue, and I think it sort of takes away some of the charm and the feel of the small town of the avenue.
So one part is that the building is, in my opinion, too tall.
Secondly, talking to a lot of my neighbors, they mentioned bike parking in the basement, which is fantastic.
However, it seems likely that many of the people that live there will probably have a car and there is not sufficient street parking available.
and the last thing I'll say is that Tommy Lepore the owner never managed to show up to the community
meeting either just as he hasn't shown up today so he seems to either have trouble with his computer
or he just doesn't show up to things and I think that is somewhat concerning for the project
as well and that's all I have to say thank you thank you uh madam chair if I could just respond
Sure. When it comes to the height, we don't, this is a by right height, we're not increasing on past, we don't have a variance for height. In fact, I believe we can go a little taller than we're actually proposing.
And so because this entire parcel, excuse me, this entire block is CMX2, this may be the tallest building there now, which I haven't, I would have to confirm that.
I don't believe that's necessarily true, but we know that's not going to be the case because there's other development projects that are going to utilize them by right height on this very block.
um so that's the first thing um but in terms of parking um i think as the board and and many
people know that this is a design is a commercial corridor cmx2 properties um can't have accessory
parking unless there's some sort of rear um alley a rear access alley and what you can
see from the let me go back to the aerial
from the aerial here is that um that doesn't exist and so there's there's no way to place
parking here um the idea and partly why we put the bike storage and and and just the location
of this is that someone living on a commercial corridor um would would understand that and see
and i have to weigh the risk of having um a car or not um but as for uh mr lapoor mr lapoor
admittedly has had some trouble today accessing. He was on, one, I saw his name and then he texted
me, but he accesses Dura's phone. He doesn't utilize his computer, and there was issues with that.
he doesn't utilize his computer. And there was issues with that. He actually was at the second
meeting. He just couldn't, he just couldn't speak. But he was at the second community meeting.
And so I don't know if the gentleman that just spoke came to both meetings, but he did participate
in this process. Okay, Madam Chair, I would like to make one last attempt to allow those witnesses
with their hand up to speak if your name is bar for it might be betty please unmute yourself and
prepare to testify hi betty beaufort name and address on the record and spell your last name
please b-e-a-u-f-o-r betty beaufort b-e-a-u-f-o-r-t 1330 south garnett street
the EPA. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Okay, you may proceed. Well, we, this project, we had a community meeting on the 17th of
August, and out of the community group, out of the community meeting, 20 people opposed this
project because some of the same reason that Chris has just stated. It is a business corridor,
And with all this on the business corridor, we'd be much too busy.
This is a business corridor where people come and want to shop,
like mom and pop shops is on this corridor.
And as Councilman Clark has said, when he asked for the $400 million to do the
project for the safe corridors, he wanted to revitalize the small corridors.
And we had asked him back in December about this project.
We never got a decent answer, but we have been working on this project to see what we can do to save our community atmosphere, as Chris has just spoken about.
It's an atmosphere that's community-wise, where people can go and shop, walk and shop to put things that they needed on the breeze.
So we oppose the community, 20 people, 20 residents, oppose this project as of today, 8, 9, 8, 20, 21.
Thank you.
I'm sorry. I think Ms. Barford may be confusing this case with another one. I know there were
multiple projects along this block, but we had two community meetings, one in July,
where there wasn't a vote taken. There was multiple comments and suggestions to changes
and revisions and provisals which almost all that we've agreed to and at the second meeting
i believe there was only one vote in opposition um so i'm not sure what i'm not sure what she's
referring to i'm not speaking of that i'm not speaking of that community we had a pop-up
community meeting at the site so people could work so people could understand what was coming
on the site. One second. Who's speaking? Buford. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.
Go ahead. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. This is Tanya Sunkett. If allow, may I ask Ms. Buford
to state the address she's testifying about, just for clarification? Sure. 1437-39 Point Rees Avenue.
What happened was, Beansley was on the business corridor, we wanted people to come to the site and see for themselves what was coming to this specific site.
So we had a pop-up, we couldn't meet in a building.
We had a pop-up community meeting there at the site on August 17th.
This has nothing to do with Mr. Bertel's meeting he's talking about.
This is a community meeting that we had amongst the residents.
and out of 20 residents they said no they opposed the project. I'm not confused. This is what we had
as a community group. Madam Chair hearing that one that's news to me but two I have to object
to the testimony because she's testifying about some the the desires of I guess 20 people who
showed up for a meeting that I wasn't even aware happened. My understanding from my communication
with the registered RCO, there were two meetings. I was never aware of any meeting
among the neighbors. We've had conversations with the near neighbors. We actually had support from
the businesses on the corridor and support from the registered community organization
after multiple meetings, which were both notified per the regulations of the CBA.
Notices were sent out.
um the representatives from the owner even knocked on the doors on the corridor
The representatives and the owner even knocked on the doors on the corridor.
um and there were suggestions and provisals that were suggested after the first meeting
we came back and redesigned it to almost completely to the suggestions that were provided to us
um the community group and the attendees which were were happy with that and and made testimony
on the record of their meeting that they believe that they were heard and then voted to support
this project. So I'm not, one, I'm not aware of any other meeting until now, but two, I would
oppose to just a testimony of that because she's not a representative of RCO. She only can testify
her position. Madam Chair. Yes. Hi, this is Tanya again. We do have a calling user, Ms. Green,
i believe if you wish to testify you can do so now otherwise we will continue with the cases
hi good afternoon green just put your name and address on and spell your last name
the third citizen point breeze rco
um okay you're already sworn in so you can go ahead and testify thank you first of all uh
This particular project, again, it's about the two-story community at this particular point, and the community, as I stated earlier, has stated that they want to deserve the two-story community.
As I put on the record before, that the residence rights have been removed to address the height issue. So we will address the units that he's proposing. He's proposing putting six residential units in this building, which is really out of the character of the block.
The majority of the properties on the block are two-story, first floor commercial, and at least one apartment on top.
We, at this particular point, since we have no other way of addressing this, we will support what the city has stated,
which is to have the, I believe it was the three apartments in that particular project,
And so that it would not be so overwhelming with the residential living that this project would be changing over to. As you know that there was a lot of community pushback, as you all may know, from another project. And so therefore this project is bringing the same type of distastefulness in the community.
And so Ms. Buford, I was at that meeting with Ms. Buford, and she is correct that the residents came out. We also spoke with local businesses, and they are very concerned about this overusage of the property and the increased residential units coming on regarding the project. And we don't think it's a hardship here for him to build six. There's no real hardship. He can still add the property with three residential units.
Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, if I could just ask if the board could request if there's a representative from the RCO on the line, because this has been an ongoing conversation regarding the unit count.
and the discussion was that the one-bedroom, over two meetings with the coordinating RCO,
the discussion was that the one-bedroom units were preferable to the larger, I mean,
we could put four massive units here. The height and the massing of the building won't change
regardless of the density. Again, that's not a refusal and that's not really relevant here.
But the discussion was that that was preferable considering the providers that we agreed to.
One of the main issues that was really the first item of discussion is the trash that would be generated by any increased unit in the storage of it.
And because the owner agreed to supplement any hauling with every other day trash hauling and store whatever we have in the rear as a proviso, that was something that was addressed.
in addition to essentially every other change that we made in response to the discussions that we had.
As I stated, there's been no hiding the ball here.
The community was aware.
People came out to both of the meetings.
And at the end of the second meeting, it was a fairly positive result
that people were happy with where we ended up and were supportive of the project going forward.
Furthermore, in terms of the businesses, we knocked on every door on that block.
door on that block. We talked to the business owners that were there that could talk to us,
We talked to the business owners that were there that could talk to us.
and we had support from them as well. We also reached out to the business association
for Point Breeze, and in general, I did that myself personally. And so again, I'm not sure,
this is the first I'm hearing of another meeting of some neighbors, maybe, I know Ms. Green herself
was on the first meeting. I don't know if she made the second one. And maybe she's just not
aware of what the results and what happened there. But again, we have a support from the community
group over, not as a result of one meeting, but multiple meetings and changes that they wanted to
see that were made pursuant to their desires. I think that the size of the unit, excuse me,
the size of the parcel would require exponentially more expensive and larger units if we changed
the design with what was being proposed from the one bedroom.
And that was not something that they wanted to see.
Affordability was like at the top of their list when we were discussing the density and
how that helps.
And so, again, nothing that's being stated here by the testimony you just heard, everything that's stated here was discussed pretty thoroughly with the community, through the community groups, over four months.
And then we ended up at a place where they supported where the project ended up.
And so I would, considering that due process and considering that level of engagement, I would ask that the board give some credence to what the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition end up deciding.
I should also add that as a community group, they've done what I think is a pretty good job of making sure all the other affected RCOs were aware of what's going on.
This is one of the few community groups where I go to a meeting where they let the effective RCOs have a representative to ask questions individually before opening up to the public.
Most community groups don't do that.
So there was no hiding the ball here.
There was no non-engagement here.
It was full engagement, and we ended up with full support.
We have no other hands, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Does the board have any questions?
Yes, Vice Chair.
I'm a little confused.
What is the hardship for the increase in density?
Well, essentially, the size of the units would require some, excuse me, I keep saying units, parcel.
The size of the parcel and the need to fully demo and build ground up in conjunction to that creates a hardship.
One, the neighborhood doesn't, the community group does not want units that big and that expensive, which would be the case with a lower density.
Two, the increased cost of having to fully demolish or remediate the unsafe structure creates just an additional hardship of having to do that, which preferably would be an adaptive reuse and just doing an addition on top, but we just can't do that because it's structurally unsound and it needs to be remediated per why the demolition was approved in an expedited fashion by L&I.
And so the conjunction of those two things, plus, which I think is important, the community
desires, because again, months of community engagement that ended up with support is something
that we think.
And the marriage of those two things is why we believe that this variant should be granted.
Thank you.
Board Member Holloman, any more questions?
No, Vice Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
Property is currently indicated for commercial mixed-use on the city plan.
Given the surrounding neighborhood context, we recommend requested variance be granted
and strongly encourage further application of the city's mixed income density bonus
Program. Calendar number 2118, 1437 Point Breeze Avenue, Parcel A. My vote is yes.
Confessor Brown, my vote is yes.
excuse me i believe there are revised plans with this is that correct mr burtel that's two two
pages my apologies i should have mentioned that before that and also a proviso for trash to be
stored in the rear yard is that correct that's correct okay i had no idea
I will re-vote this.
Okay, calendar number 2118-1437 Point Breeze Avenue, Parcel A.
My vote is yes, with trash to be stored in the rear yard.
Sharon, what was the other one?
Two pages.