what the family is requesting. so the project sponsors have agreed to eliminate both doors. commissioner moore? >> we can approve this project with the stipulation wit, with e condition the drawings are being revised, that the department acknowledges and presents to the department that through the commission that the drawings have been amended and have a restricting condition on the approval that two buildings cannot be connected but they will come as independently as accessible occupied buildings. i make a motion for that type of approval. >> i second. >> there's a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to require that the connecting door be

closed. >> eliminated, completely eliminated. >> creating -- well, just eliminated. >> and that the two properties can never be connected. >> very good, on that motion, commissioner fung? (role call). >> so moved, commissioners and that passes unanimously 5-00. we're at 209-15322 for the code clean-up 2019 planning code amendment. >> good afternoon veronica floris. the item before you is code clean-up amendments and the ordinance would amend the planning code to correct

typographical errors, update, outdated cross previous refereno clarify the code language. the proposed ordinance will amend article 4 to move the language regarding timing of the payments to the beginning of the article and cross-reference that new subsection in the impact fee sections. lastly, the proposed ordinance will also add an additional fee waiver based on the replacement of gross floor area and buildings damaged by fire or destroyed by other calamity. pair i havi have a signed copy r changes for you. (please stand by).

>> i am still not sure if it is all nonsubstantive.

i noticed that the definition, there are some changes. there is an insertion of the word primarily for definitions of use and i'm just wondering, is this to accommodate flexible use? what was the intent to their? section 260, height limit exemptions. i believe it is pages 26 through 27, although i don't know what version you have. the new text there, section one b. has a description that is hard to comprehend clearly or envision. it is like the definition of demolition. it talks about, within the first 10 feet, there are particular analysis. no more than 40% of horizontal areas. it goes on to talk about dimensions and heights and it is very confusing. i don't know what is meant by areas, and, in fact, some planning codes have illustrations. it would be helpful to have illustrations for that.

was a 10 feet alliances thing for the height limit. that would make the description less cryptic as i see it. please include this in your minutes under section -- sunshine 6516. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner koppel? >> i would like to make a motion to initiate and consider eight -- consider an adoption on or after december 12th, 2019. >> second. >> i'm sorry, commissioner fun? >> question for staff. the question is not so much regarding this task, but to

raise the question of whether there are obsolete sections of the codes that could be easily removed. >> planning department staff. in terms of the existing planning code sections, they are considered obsolete and are no longer -- no longer an auto object. there are some still under review per those code sections. we want to make sure we have the longevity and project history and code history behind it. we have chosen to take the conservative approach and retain some of these more obsolete code sections. >> from the first time i was on this commission, that code has doubled in size. it seems to continually grow.

anyway, i remember having a discussion with one of the previous is owning administrators who said that the code could easily be half. anyways it is probably just a nonsensical comment. >> we are always looking for ways to make the code smaller, but it is a specific task. >> if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to initiate and consider adoption on or after december 12th, 2018. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4 -0. item 14 has been continued to december 12th, placing is on item 15.

367 hamilton avenue conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. i'm with planning department staff. we want to allow demolition of an existing single-family home within the r.h. one zoning district. the project included adding an accessory dwelling unit on the ground floor. the project required conditional use authorization per planning code section 317 because it is considered tantamount to demolition and includes the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit on the ground floor. and just for clarification, that is the area that is to be converted to an a.d.u. so part of the proposal includes the demolition of said residential building and then a new construction of a three-story building. the project includes one dwelling unit with three bedrooms on the second and third

floors, and an a.d.u. with two bedrooms on the ground floor. the project includes about 1300 square feet of common open space via the ground-floor courtyard, in addition to private balconies and decks for each unit. the current property owner has occupied the lower unit since purchasing the property circa 2012. the upper unit was previously rented out to a family friend on a month-to-month lease. that tenant has since moved out about last month. the department has received four letters in opposition to the project with concerns related to overall massing, design, and parking. the project sponsor requested a continuance last time in order to hold an additional committee meeting last month. this was to be able to further engage with the neighborhood. however, there were no attendees at said meeting. the department is in general support of the proposed design, which was reviewed with the residential design advisory team , and the project meets all

relevant planning code and design guidelines. the department recommends approval with conditions for the following reasons. the project proposes two family sized units that will add to the city's housing stock. the project will not displace any tenants as a result of this project and the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. this concludes staff to do presentation. i am available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. do we have a project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners i have a few backgrounds on the project. the project started in 2018 and this is -- [indiscernible] originally we asked for a re edition to a 900 square foot

single-family home on a 3,000 square feet lot, but since the preapplication meeting, we have been working with three planners now and amended the project to better fit the planning department design guidelines department design guidelines with the midblock open space. it fits with the neighborhood content. the project in front of you today, like i said, went through a series of amendments, and revisions. we also propose an a.d.u. on the ground floor. it is three stories. the ground-floor has one of the a.d.u.s. the second and third floor is one unit. they were two separate community outreach that we did on this project. one in 2016 in april. it was a preapplication meeting. there were seven neighbors that came to that meeting and we did pass -- we did have concerns on

that meeting. and again on october 16th, the second committee outreach that we did had no attendance and despite all our efforts reaching out through e-mails, posting on sites, this will conclude my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. okay. do we have any public comment on this item? i do not have any speaker cards. but if any members of the public want to speak to the item, please do so now. okay. public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> i have a few questions about the fact that the unit design looks as if they are still connectable and not really fully separate units.

the lower unit has quality that i question to be fully acceptable unit due to the fact that the deck which comes down and extends over the living area is only so deep that the unit itself is basically in the dark. for to qualify as a second bedroom, it does not work quite either because the second bedroom is actually not a legal bedroom. so that said, i think this project, in order to be really approvable as two units, even as an a.d.u., has to make a couple of changes. and foremost, it has to break the ability to connect the two units and use the house is one large home. that is the most important requirement here.

>> commissioner koppel? >> i hear what commissioner moore is saying and i am definitely okay with any amendments you would like to see in general, i don't think this task is too much. it makes cases for us to continue the discussion about maybe lifting density controls because this is an r.h. one. >> i would suggest we would continue this because the changes that need to be made are not for me to design, but for the applicant to professionally meet on his own because he must know the code in order to do so. so i make a motion to continue. we are in support of two units, however they have to be done slightly differently. >> may i request, commissioner moore, we give guidance to staff a little bit further about what specifically the changes that you were wanting to see to make -- do you think that you got up about habitability for the second bedroom, and also -- >> the deck?

thank you, commissioner melgar. the deck of the second unit and the stairs coming to the garden have to be designed differently to not obscure the livability of the leeward -- lower unit. second comment, in order for the lower unit, it is very desirable to have two bedrooms. the second bedroom has to be a legal bedroom. has to do with light and air and where it sits. the third point, and the most important one, in order for it to be an a.d.u. by the standards we are all discussing, the unit needs to be independently accessible from the outside, have its own little address or whatever, and read at the front of the building, rather than being accessed through a common corridor by which, at the moment , it could be easily connected to the upper unit. those are the requirements for what we pretty much say to everybody who is fine to do this >> thank you. is that clear? okay.

did you want to make -- you made a motion. >> i am making a motion that the project be continued to meet under the department's guidance the standard conditions that apply to an a.d.u., including the nonability to misconstrue as two units which could be internally connected. >> commission, just as a point, given the direction you provided , you know, we can certainly base that into their condition of approval and we are confident in working with staff architects that the plans can be updated accordingly. like the financial way to accommodate for two independent entries and we will work with the architect to make sure that happens. it could be shaved back slightly to ensure that there is equitable late access to the lower unit given the concerned there and the bedroom discussion , right now it only has four one-bedroom and they are calling the other one a media room.

i know deep in lie has their interpretations for access to light and artificial air for certain things but they are not calling it a bedroom at the current time based on what we see in the plans. >> i know commissioner moore would like to see plans. maybe we can come back on the consent calendar if we have new drawings. >> since the planning department is really shortstaffed and architects who can really look at everything, and i think it is for your benefit to give yourself the time and give us the ability to support you in a properly approvable project. i'm trying to make it easy on you. i i'm asking that this project, if it comes back before we give it our approval. >> did we get a second? >> is there a sense the architect needs -- how much time >> four weeks.

>> this is a week, maybe a few weeks -- a few days worth of work. we could resolve this issue fairly quickly. i understand the design. >> we can come back on consent. we could calendar this as soon as december 5th. >> fine. >> very good, commissioners. on that motion to continue this matter -- >> i'm sorry. commissioner fung? >> these issues, while i am in agreement with commissioner moore's issues, that they are not that difficult to resolve in terms of a redesign of its. i only accepted of the department recognizing those three points and going forth with their resolution as a condition of approval.

>> is there a second to the continuance? is there an alternate motion? >> i will move to grant to the approval on the conditions, the three that were brought forth by commissioner moore be resolved by staff before they issue final approval. >> second. >> so there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions is amended to include conditions to address issues at the entry way for two separate entrances and access to light for the lower level unit. >> by shaving the deck back.

>> by shaving the deck back. and the third, it was the third matter? >> the visibility of the potentially second bedroom. and livability of the second bedroom. >> when did you say -- did you say about independent access? >> entry, yes. >> it is not just the entrance. it is the entire unit that is clearly separated and cannot be connected to the second upstairs unit. >> did you want to say something >> a point of clarification so i understand correctly, so the second point regarding the deck and then reducing the deck to make sure that there's no -- to make sure there is independent access, and also providing more access to light for the second bedroom, they are related. >> reducing the deck is something often to do with privacy about where the stair is the person who comes down from the second unit going into the

garden. my coming down directly into their living space. that is not indicative of a well-designed two unit building. >> understood. >> very good. on that motion... [roll call] >> i made the motion. >> i still have to ask the question. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. commissioners, that will place us in item 16. 3945 judah street, this is a home s.f. project authorization. >> good afternoon, president melgar and commissioners. i'm with department staff. the case before you is a request for a home s.f. project authorization for the demolition of an existing one story commercial building, formerly utilized for the operation of a

gas station, in the construction of a new five-story over basement 50-foot -- 55-foot approximately 19,160 square-foot mixed-use building containing 20 dwelling units, 2400 square feet of commercial space, seven offstreet parking spaces, and 24 bicycle parking spaces within the and c-1 zoning district. as part of the home s.f. to your two project authorization, we are pursuing a -- [indiscernible] one additional story of height and five additional feet at the ground floor in excess of the height limit in exchange for providing 25% on-site affordable rental units.

members of the public expressing support says it will enhance existing commercial corridor, contribute affordable units and family-friendly units to the neighborhood. in conclusion, we recommend the approval of the commission and believe it is necessary and if it -- desirable for the department -- for the community. [indiscernible]

the budget will provide family-friendly units and will contain two or more bedrooms and be located near amenities by open space and laundry rooms. the project will increase the city's housing stock by providing a total of 20 new dwelling units, five of which will be designated as on-site rental affordable units. this concludes our presentation. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you very much. do we have a project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners michael leavitt of lovett architecture. this project was originally designed as a six unit

residential project over commercial. that was what was allowed by the zoning. the redesign process, the home s.f. legislation passed and we redesigned the project per the project sponsor's request as the home s.f. project that is in the current configuration that we will be looking at. the original project for code was 100% market rate housing. the revised project that we have put together here and we are presenting today will add 14 units above the sixth that were originally proposed. if i can get the screen up, please. under the original zoning, the building would be allowed to be built to a 45-foot height. it is indicated by the red arrow

here on this section drawing. with the home s.f. bonus, we are only adding an additional 10 feet to the building and this is 10 feet below what we would be allowed to add per code. i'm sorry. it doesn't seem to be working. i can't get the next slide up, i'm sorry. >> please keep making a presentation. it's fine. >> it's important you look at the visuals. it was working when i tested it earlier. here we go. i got it. sorry about that. looking at the immediate context of the site just the sight mac, it sits at the commercial transit-oriented corridor and ty

residential block of 45th avenue. the commercial establishments are highlighted here in red. pulling back to the larger context, we see the side of the far western edge of the city, near the land and sea intersection. considering the forces that would affect the approach to the design of this building, we wanted to consider not only the typical context of the adjacent street and structure, but also this larger geographic context. knowing that the building would stand above its neighbors, we attempted to create a form that braces -- embraces its height and speaks to its outer sunset location. towards that end, building forms and material pallets were studied that would be appropriately evocative of the building in place.

on the street side, the building rises to his full height at the lot line, running the full length of the frontage before culminating in a multilevel wall of floor-to-ceiling windows at the western termination. we determined a form that was consciously directional toward the west would be inappropriate recognition of our location, literally on the western edge of the continent. as the building turns the corner to the 45th avenue frontage, the main mass of the building steps back in response to the smaller scale residential structures to its south. a setback allows for series of linear balconies, third through fifth floors and a private comment deck area on the second level. the setbacks seen here from the 45th avenue side also allow additional morning sunlight to reach a street-level park that is immediately across 45th avenue. larger than other buildings on

the block, our buildings to the north end of the block and therefore, cast very little shadow on the homes or yards behind it. the entire residential portion of the building sits atop a rough concrete base open on both street frontages with floor-to-ceiling storefront glass. the main body of the building will be clad in painted wood, vertical order form citing, and the battens will be irregularly spaced in reducing the formality of the surface to create a relaxed feel. similarly the bay windows and street-level planters will be clad in reclaimed wood, siding, adding warmth and textural interest to the façade. the street-level will beat further developed was street trees and landscaped areas.

in conclusion we would like to say we think this project is a perfect example of what the home s.f. legislation was trying to accomplish. we are adding four conditional areas of otherwise what would be allowed. thank you. >> thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this project. i have several speaker cards. if you're here to provide public comment, please come to line up on the last -- on the left as i call your name. wexit. -- wexit -- [calling names] >> good afternoon. thank you for waiting for this. i am a resident on 44th avenue and judah, right around the corner of this project. i have not have seen what has evolved out of the original six

unit planning, but as i look at this, i'm a little taken aback by the size and the context, out of context with the family oriented area in the western addition as we are out here in the sunset. i am all for more housing. i am really all for affordable housing. i am all for taking the parking lot that was the garage and doing something with it after 30 years of watching it desiccate. i do not agree with taking the bronx and turning it into manhattan. the reason we live out there is because we have our families and we have been constructing a world that has got a quality of life that we enjoy. this, as you can see by the picture, is unbelievably out of context with the neighborhood. you look at the last picture that was shown for this monstrosity to go beyond eyesight, and the houses that

are single-family all over down the front. i enjoy going to the store across the street, and having a decent meal of good, healthy food. we won't be able to have that. what is worse is this is not a set of units that are for families. these are half of them that are one-bedroom apartments. the rest of two bedroom apartments. you can't have families. if you did shoehorn families into these apartments, what you end up with is mothers and children having to schlep their way because there's no parking for this building, schlepping their way to the safe way to get their groceries and coming back, and what that means is no public transportation. that means a yellowjacket swarm of uber drivers, even more than they already are around that area. it is no more use in public trend -- of transportation with all the things that we have done to make that happen. overcrowded, shoehorned in, no parking, and then two blocks

away on 43rd avenue is a huge project which will be built for teacher housing with no more accommodation for car parking. families have cars. this is how this works. it is ridiculous to think that they don't. i am against the size of this. i'm very much for doing this. if we good step back to where the houses are consistent with the parking and consistent with the neighborhood, i am all for it. this isn't. this is a real estate bonanza and i'm not happy with it. i am happy with the thought of doing something with the blighted parking lot. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am one of the owner workers at other avenues that the person before me was speaking about.

our customers appreciate the surfing lifestyle that is out there and also all the families. i contacted -- because we have almost 32 kilowatts of solar on our roof. and at the height that they are proposing, it just barely makes it so that if they were to go any higher, it would start shading solar panels and we are across the street. and is one of our neighbors was talking about, most of the residences currently in the sunset don't even reach the district eight height limit of 40 feet. so most of those buildings

around it are not even at 40 feet yet. this is almost going 20 feet beyond that. so as a business owner in the area directly across the street, we will be affected by the amount -- basically there won't be anymore sunlight coming into our store from that side. so we are concerned about the extension. we also appreciate the fact, myself personally, that they are trying to create b.m.r. in the city. i was applying for them all last year to no avail, but we just feel that this particular spot, given that it is pretty flat and this will jet straight out of it is not appropriate. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is ben and i have been a resident of the outer sunset for eight years. i support this project. i live four blocks away from the

proposed project. i live in a four story, 12 unit, multifamily apartment building. my building his vibrant. it is home to senior citizens, families with young children, teachers, and working professionals like myself. we shop at local businesses, eat at local restaurants, attend local schools. we participate fully in the life of our neighborhood. my building was built in 1928. it makes me sad and sometimes angry that a building like my own seemingly could not be built today. my building is not enough. it is not modern, it is not accessible for old people or people with disabilities. it has led and toxicity issues of concern for very young children. the neighborhood needs more buildings like my own, but needs better ones. multifamily, dens, accessible, modern, vibrant. this project is equally an issue of inclusion as it is of character. i support this project and i urge you to support this project , too.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is david scheer. i live around the corner from this project. i am here to represent and transfer feedback from about 150 of my neighbors that have collected information. i actually hadn't heard about this project until about it at a week and a half ago and the postings were on the side and the neighbors starting contact -- started contacting me. i am an architect. i am able to translate the wordiness.

some support it and some people don't. i will share that survey information with you other than san francisco -- i have been in a san francisco for about 30 years. i bought a house or on 44th about five years ago. i remodelled a dilapidated 12 bedroom -- two bedroom to a three-bedroom. i am planning and a.d.u. in the backyard. i also have a small almost nonprofit to support my neighbors in the neighborhood. and the reason i tell you all this is to say, as well as the first speaker, a project -- i support a project of this size. this one is far outside the bounds of what is reasonably natural for this area. my main issues are the home s.f. bonus, which i agree with,.

the affordable bonus provides an additional incentive of a story which makes this project so outsized. it is the average rent that are more than the average rents in the neighborhood right now. i'm trying to present the feedback from 150 people here. let me say that with such high opposition for this project, i don't want this to be a yes or no thing. i want to present a way for the

developer to present something. >> your time is up. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i am the neighbor that lives right next to where this construction is going to be happening. i have been living there for quite a while. i have been in the neighborhood since i came here when i was seven. i have been in the neighborhood

for a while. it is definitely a bit jarring to think that such a huge construction project will be happening right next door and we have a few concerns, for example, regarding the sewage, and how such a huge unit is going to be maintained and handled. there is nothing of that scale on our block at the moment. even with everyone at a small residential place, we have issues every day. we have plumbing issues. i just can't imagine something on that scale. yeah, i think -- and there's just -- yeah.

>> thank you. >> yeah. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am living next door. i really appreciate the new no parking requirements. i am hoping you can take into consideration the nature of our neighborhood. many older people and children over there. parking and transportation is very inconvenient for these other people. close to my neighborhood i saw some older people and -- [indiscernible] without a parking space it is very hard.

sometimes i work late. when i'm back home, it takes up to 20 minutes to find a parking spot currently. so if this building only has seven parking spaces for 20 units, i say -- [indiscernible] it cost a lot of parking. it is very crowded. secondary, i am concerned that it will affect the neighborhood 's air quality. thirdly, i'm thinking, the sunrise is very beautiful place. this neighborhood is two blocks away from golden gate park. there are many visitors who park there and look a lot.

it is a nice style to let people see. it is a desired result. [indiscernible] another concern is the chain effect. i think many people are owners. [indiscernible] [indiscernible]

thank you so much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is kyle. i am a resident on 48th and judah. like the other folks before me, i share concerns about the height, the lack of parking, i certainly think that site should be developed and i think that first drawing would be appropriate for the neighborhood i'm not opposed to development, but it seems like it is a rather large building for the neighborhood. i appreciate it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is mike and i am a homeowner at 44th and kirk them. i am just outside of the 155 --

hundred 50-foot notification range. i saw signs posted on a bus. might assumption would be it would be under conditional use and would require 300 feet notification. one of the conversions in my neighborhood is on 44th, just down the street. those contractors there took the cap off and they let 24 inches drain. they took all the toxins and dumped it into our groundwater supply. this station has been abandoned for a couple of decades because the tank's 235-gallon gas tanks, with a power line over the top of them, have been leaking into the soils for decades. that is why it has not been touched. there's no plan to remediate this and the environmental sight assessment, which was not included in the packet, but i did get from planning, is simply a walkabout. there's no soil testing involved at all in this project.

if you are concerned about the groundwater supply, and that -- that is the only time i have appeared before this commission to talk about adding groundwater to the potable supply. i would encourage you to have a good look at rejecting this draft notion. the reason being is our groundwater supply right now is quarantined from the regular supply, or at least was in the last rainfall season due to the contamination by industrial solvents. similar to chemicals that are in gasoline. i am wondering where that stuff is coming from. there's a dozen or so errors in the draft motion, so i will bring a couple of those to your attention while i have time right now. on page 13, the draft motion page 10 lists the supervisor rural district as eight. i know these boilerplate sort of things, but we are district four this i know because i ran for supervisor in the district a couple of times. you need to fix that.

another is the height indicates a 10-foot bonus. is actually more because it is billed at grade. it will be be -- it will be much more than 10 feet. that is the southwest corner of that construction. the bulk and massing is out of scale by a factor of two. it is twice as big as anything else within a 300-foot notification range. the streetscape will continue with his own type construction to be built around town. currently it is cracking open space. occasionally we get christmas trees, and i would encourage the commission here to have a look at that as well. it is not low density. it is the same number of homes all on that one corner. it is on the entire length of the block. that is why a lot of people are objecting to it. there are number of options. there there's no assurances won't be built as a loophole for developers who are not built elsewhere.

>> thank you. your time is up. >> thank you, commissioners. commissioner richards, congratulations and happy birthday to your mother. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is erica. i live one block from the proposal. i also got no notice about this and found out about the upgrading of the proposal a few years ago, which i didn't object to the lower level. i found out about this one weeks ago. the project sponsor has done no community engagement that i know of not with the homeowners, not

with the renters, and not with the business people. i don't see a community benefit. [indiscernible] this will be high priced housing it will not be inclusionary in terms of diversity in the neighborhood. i am working with a group and with supervisors to find sights for 100% affordable housing. i understand this is a private venture, but it absolutely is intrusion airy into the small beach town community and one of the only areas like that left in san francisco. i need to tell you that i lived in a three-story building. i live and i own it. i have two below market right -- below-market rate housing areas.

i have lived there for 40 years. i moved in as a young mother and i have a grandson that grew up right in there. it is a very small apartment with a beautiful view of the ocean. i enjoyed bringing my son up there and having the view. there has been no look about how it stays with the character and who it hits in terms of the views. that will block out a huge amount of use for me. i don't know any other people in the neighborhood. yes, housing is more important than views, i'm with you on that , but affordable housing is more important than market rate housing. this project manager or project sponsor made no outreach to work with the neighbors at all.

it is another form of silencing the voice of the local people. it fast attracts these types of projects through and it is really -- to me, home san francisco is very close in terms of being able to mow over neighborhood character and people that live there and have lived there for years and made it a place that they want to -- >> thank you. your time is up. >> alrighty. >> thank you. >> my name is dan and i was born and raised on 45th and judah. i still live there with my family and my four kids. i understand we have a problem housing, which a lot of it falls on all these companies.

we have a very big problem. it is completely out of character. is way too tall. i love driving down judah and you can actually see something this is a monster. three stories i have no problem

with. five is complete the out of character. >> of course, in support of that project, we actually find that it is too short. the project sponsor should show the additional stories so we can reach the 30% b.m.r. ratio in that. that there is also too much parking. last year if you remember, there were parking requirements. why are we requiring the project sponsor to have seven? we know it adds anywhere between 100 to 200,000 per parking spot to build those. but what i will say, i am a neighbor of that project. i live on 48th and judah. i would love to live there.

me and my wife live in a two bedroom. we want to be able to have a newer construction where you can have families and a community instead of schlepping our laundry to the laundromat and biking -- [indiscernible] it is right on judah. if you are not proving the project that is on the most used transit corridor in this city, you are never going to be approving any transit parking. so it is a beautiful project. there's too much parking. should you delay that any further? no. it was created one home as of

was affordable housing because there was a lot of misinformation going on around the sun set. a group of 40 neighbors get together and we were next door, coming to the meetings just to support that because we are a bunch of millenials, boomers, homeowners, renters, we are a very diverse group. we wanted more housing so our kids could live there. so when we saw that this project was under home s.f., that was in 2018. we are in 2019 now. i was actually at that community outreach meeting right on the side. not a lot of them were opposed to it. there were a few people who were -- [indiscernible] as you can see in the letters they were very supportive of it.

thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you for your time. >> i am a resident of the outer sunset and i have been for over 14 years. i am also a business owner in the outer sunset. i own a restaurant across the street. i'm so excited to see the slot developed. it has been a little bit of a sadness across the street from us for a long time, but at the same time, i feel like this is completely out of the character of our neighborhood. i moved to the sunset because i wanted to be closer to the ocean after being in the community for few years, i realized wanted to invest my family and myself into that neighborhood. that is why i decided to open a business there. since then, many people have opened businesses on the block directly near this lot. we have worked together really hard to try to preserve what we

see as a rich history in the sunset. it is a place that has had a lot of difference from the rest of the city. it is extremely diverse. it is kind of autonomous in an interesting way and that has been a benefit for people that live there and also a special way that our community has been able to create a different type of culture that has been celebrated by many of the residents in other parts of the city. so i think what i would like to request is that the planning commission consider that and consider that we do have a housing crisis. nobody is denying that. absolutely, please make sure we can get more housing in the sunset, but there are -- you have the power to incentivize different paths for addressing that problem, and right now the incentive is going toward something that will wipe out our neighborhood in a pretty short time and this is the beginning of that.

versus, you know, there are many other ways that you can do this. it is a different path you can go which will actually show respect and support for what this neighborhood is, and the residents that are close in it and how we are together to celebrate the neighborhood together as it is. i am requesting that this is slowed down. it is needing to have a larger conversation about what this neighborhood is. and what it wants to become and what the neighbors who have been there for quite a long time feel about where this should go. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. thank you for your time. i live on 45th and judah. i oppose the project for many reasons. the point i want to bring up is

i think many of us were surprised. i know there is a 100-foot radius, but this is a big project in a big deal for our neighborhood. i have been in touch with supervisor gordon mar's office about this. one of the areas that we all see as an opportunity and supervisor marr agreed is there has been a much broader planning around terra vale street about how that neighborhood can evolve and how it can add affordable housing. to my knowledge, the effort hasn't been done. what do we believe about this neighborhood? how do we expect it to grow. i think what i ask is similar to what others have asked. we are not opposed to this being developed and not opposed to this lot being a