few places on that street where they need a tenant. this idea in general, and i think of valencia street kind of spreading to mission. and for me getting involved in these kinds of issues goes back to a few years where you see this kind of process coming down the mission, and then, you had a huge fire around 22nd, a couple fires around 22nd, mission, in that area, and really woke me up to this issue of gentrification. and maybe an overall strategy for our city of a business like this does harm to the neighborhood, which is gentrification. we can be fair in, say, certain areas like valencia or some areas you can allow for this kind of development, but other areas, you have to protect the people that are living there. so this particular spot, i do know a nonprofit that would like to have a soup kitchen. i think that might be a better -- and work with the

community to have some kind of other use of that restaurant style activity that would fit the neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter papadapoulis. we're honestly surprised to be here. we thought we had great talks with these folks. it was clear that they didn't really know the issues of the neighborhood that well, which is fine, and they seemed to be very open to talking through what would it take to make this project sort of a win-win situation that you're looking for, and as you all know that we have reached agreements with many projects in the neighborhood. we continue to sign them within these few weeks, additional agreements that we think everyone's very happy with and is proving to be very successful places, like impact or quitava.

we had a great walk with them. they seemed in very favor with all of these concepts, making sure their price points are reasonable, cooking classes, our folks can take advantage of them. we talked about maybe our youth groups taking advantage of them, or our m.p.n. neighborhood families, all these kinds of ideas. all seemed to be going well. we even went through some agreement language, and then, about a week ago, communication seemed to go to almost a halt. a few sort of noncommittal, nondirect responses by e-mail, followed by the last couple days basically radio silence. so like i said, we're a little bit surprised to be here, and we still think a positive outcome is possible, but i do think we also think, and you just heard that there are other outcomes that we could do with these spaces.

there's certainly nonprofits that are being displaced in large numbers, things like soup itch cans, things like our social service providers are endangered on a daily basis as you know, and you all know a lot of those. a lot of those kind of uses are possible, and we think you have that discretion, were you to choose it. however, these folks want to choose to work towards those kind of a win-win outcome, something that made sure the community could get a lot of opportunity and access in the space, i think we would be all for that. so i do want to just, if i can, try to really quickly, sfgov tv show you a little context. so i'm just going to hold my laptop here, but get the idea of what this neighborhood around us looks like. it's plumbing supplies. these are just random shops. it's housing with working class families. you have the paint store across the street. you have the 200 unit s.r.o. half a block away, run by tndc.

the gas station's directly across the street. and then, to look at in comparison, when we were looking at this site, the hong kong site, and you have to divide by about 7.8, but you're talking pretty expensive. $70 a night, $100 a night, we're talking hundreds of dollars for specialty items. so that's what concerns us, is how do we get access to that type of thing. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening -- good evening, commissioners. my name's kevin ortiz. san francisco native, san francisco democratic club. i'm also a tech worker. so that being said, this body's been up here many a time advocating for the community. we were on the phone many times with pata and her expediter. it is clear they were unfamiliar with what this

community has faced with gentrification and displacement. we heard nothing right afterwards. it basically, it was very minimal. the e-mails basically just all by disappeared. you know, relationships include a give or take on both party's ends, in that we feel that this relationship has been very minimal after the tour. it's clear that they are unaware of the issues or worse that they don't feel the need to listen to our voice. if it's the latter, then the commission's response should be clear-cut to disprove this project. the price points are not exciting at all, especially even as a tech worker, price points being $120 or one class, taking off that hat and just being from my end, being from an affordable housing unit, how can a family of four making $37,000 afford that? so this model is directed towards executive making much more money than you and i. we really need to have a

community effort, and if we can't reach that, then we should just cancel this project and cut it down. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, again. steven buss with mission yimby. you know, it's fine to demand things of people that want to do something in a neighborhood, but we should make those laws, right? it shouldn't be this project-by-project negotiations. it should be clearly defined rules set in law, and you should follow those laws, right? but specifically, i want to talk about something the pastor mentioned. he said, you know, we can put businesses like this along valencia or in places that are

already gentrified or not at risk in gentrification. what about noe valley? let's make room for innovative businesses like this. why is noe valley a residential only neighborhood? why can't be absorb expensive, high end restaurants? >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is joe garvey. i live about a block from this location, and i'm a coowner of a restaurant a few blocks away. and i'm just -- i'm just baffled by hypergentrification being associated with cuisine that doesn't fit the neighborhood. the price point doesn't fit the neighborhood. you know, the opposition

doesn't understand, i don't think, what it takes to operate a restaurant where there's 7,800 restaurants in san francisco. somebody that has the courage and the passion to open a restaurant where there's 7,800 restaurants is somebody that i want doing business one block away from where i live, so i fully support this project. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? you spoke -- your time was during presentation. we may have questions. we may have questions. >> clerk: unless there are questions. >> president hillis: miss clark? >> this is outside of housing, and i try not to speak on things outside of housing, stay in your lane, but i just want to -- the term "outsider" was thrown out there, and it's something we should be really worried about, and we should be really careful.

it's dark days right now. i think we're all pretty aware of that, and we should be really careful in our language. the -- there's laws that you can look up the league of cities has actually a pretty weak, mealy mouthed thing when people express prejudice from the dais, you say that's not what's going to inform our decision, and so i just want to make sure that you guys are thinking about that, and we're all thinking about the ways in which we communicate poorly with one another, and how to -- i think that the walking tour sounds great, and creating more opportunities for communities to figure out how to relate to people who are different from one another, but we have to be really careful about staying on one side of our language line. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? all right. seeing none, we'll open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner melgar?

>> vice president melgar: so i am very excited about your business model. i think that that actually sounded really great, as somebody who has worked with microbusinesses, i think this could be, like, a step up from la cocina before it happens, that somebody can afford a space. so i can see the tremendous potential for this community to come to an agreement with you where the community could not just, you know, incur the benefit but could actually help you with your business model. so i'm wondering, why didn't it happen? why -- why don't we have something in writing? how come it didn't gel? [inaudible] >> vice president melgar: yes, please. >> like i said, i'm really new to san francisco, and this whole thing is really new. like i said, my intention -- like, i'm already -- i met them, and i love the ideas. the only thing is i'm not sure what to sign because i understand that we're going to

come to this hearing, and whatever i had told the teams and the group that i will be sponsoring community events at 50% rates, which is almost just cover the cost of everything else of, like, once a month, i'll be sponsoring chefs, like, from the community who cook really well and actually want to start their business. and that will basically come -- cover the food costs. hong kong, i'm sure you know, the rent is the most expensive place in the world, and the price of everything else is related to where it is. so i would not take the price of hong kong be related to san francisco, because the price in hong kong is really crazy because of the real estate. what i'm here today, i -- like i said, i met the whole group. i would like to sponsor the community events.

if there's a chef in the community that is interested in food, i would like to sponsor. i would like to below cost and cost effective in the platform. i'm not a person that define the cost of the food, it's the chef themselves. and if the chef have be able to access the affordable ingredients, then they will be actually able to provide affordable food for the people. so to me, like i said, i understand all the conditions they would like to request will be integrated today, and i could -- i don't know. that's how i understand. >> vice president melgar: yeah. so i -- so let me just tell you specifically -- and other commissioners, please feel free to speak. so to me, i'm not ready to vote on this today because i don't feel like it's cooked. like, i don't feel what you're bringing to us is a full project with already agreements in place. so what you have said about giving, you know, community space at 50%, that's an idea.

that's just an idea. it's not really a -- you know, a negotiated set of agreements with the community, so i would hope that if this doesn't go forward today, that you would come back with something that is in writing that you have thought about that will support the success of your business. so you know, if that one idea of giving space or free pencils out, and it still allows you to be successful, and then, you bring it back to us, that's great, but it may not. i would like some thinking -- you know, it may not be that. it may be that what you can offer the community that pencils out for your business may be giving kitchen space out at a discounted price. it may be the price point of the food. maybe not. it may be jobs or something. what it's going to take is some intentionality and some negotiation with the community, but also be thinking about what

you can get from them. la cocina offer technical service to all these techers who might be customers in terms of renting out space for you. so i'm just saying it's going to take a little bit more sitting down, thinking about things in how it pencils out for your business plan. i actually think you can get to a win-win situation here. >> yeah. for me, it's what's the best way to go with it. i understand -- if i understand, i should not be signing any documents because i've been requested to sign a few documents, because i'm not sure actually what it is legally for. and i understand that if i agree, everything that they ask for in the hearing, and i would sign for conditional use, and that would be the way to -- that i understand. >> commissioner richards: so if i can just chime in real quick. so typically what happens in --

>> so if i can just chime in real quick, so typically, what happens, things that are under consideration by the planning commission, ultimately, the building permit and change of use are things that the commission can impact. so hours of operation, lighting, things that are related to the physical aspects of the property. other items that relate to the operation of their -- of your business are typically outside of the purview of the commission, and so typically, those are handled in a separate agreement that's with the community that's outside of the city and what we can enforce on a daily basis. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. commissioner johnson? are you done, commissioner? commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: so i'm actually -- i'm optimistic about this project. i hear a business owner that

wants to work with the community, and community members that have taken the time to try to help someone understand the pressures of the community and the trauma of the community and are willing to work with the business to help the business setup in a way in which you'll be welcomed by all parts of the community. and what i'm hearing is -- and i also just think you are in this very special place with la cocina, meta, 22 reasons, we have this history of innovation of places. i would request to continue this to give you time to work on this on something that works for you and works for the community. >> president hillis: did you want to specify a date for the continuances? or did you want to help us out on this, jonas?

a month or two weeks? >> commissioner johnson: we want you to meet quickly and -- >> clerk: july 26. >> commissioner johnson: okay. so move to continue this item to july 26. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i say welcome to san francisco. i think a business in that location is necessary. i think it's desirable, which are the standards for a conditional use. however, we look for neighborhood support to make you more compatible. we've had stories of restaurants and other businesses in certain neighborhoods, this one, as well, who did go in, and they didn't quite understand the neighborhood, what it's gone through, and they ended up leaving or going out of business. and i don't think you're going to be one of those.

i think you're going to be able to work with the community. the community wants to work with you, and i think you can figure this out, and i don't think that they're asking for much. i think commission -- or commissioner melgar had some great ideas around some of the organizations that are there that can offer some ideas to you. i can't wait in two weeks to approve this, knowing that you're going to fit in. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: it seems to me as though the applicant is not totally familiar with every process here. i don't want to insult you in any form or shape, but perhaps we need to ask for somebody to help and kind of be facilitating between both groups. there's will, there's interest, there is compatiblity, definitely, on a level, but there's a missing link. who can act as the interpreter, the go-between, someone creating a cultural goodwill bridge here. in most cases, we involve an

attorney or legal adviser because any form of legally signed document, any form document between two parties is a legal document in its own right, so i'm searching -- perhaps mr. papadopoulos can help find someone who can be a crible third party -- credible third party. what can we do? >> yeah. that's a good question. maybe we can bridge this. i hate to volunteer them, but maybe the supervisor's office has helped bridge a couple of these in the past, and i think we can approach amy bynart and see if -- she handles these issues and maybe she can do that. >> commissioner moore: i think that little extra help with the supervisor may be exactly what we need here.

thank you for suggesting that. so with that, i think we're giving it a positive spin. we're supporting it, and hope that there's resonance. the only thing is just like we, the supervisors will be rushing towards their summer break, and that is their little time to do this. >> president hillis: all right. there's a motion and a second, jonas. >> clerk: indeed, there is. should i call the question? >> president hillis: yes. >> clerk: on the motion to continue this to july 26, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 17 for case number 2017-011414 cua, 232 clipper street, this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. kathleen campbell, planning department staff. the proposal is a conditional use authorization request to remove a residential unit and to construct a new, two family dwelling at 232 clipper street. the proposal is to demolish an existing one story single-family residence and construct a new structure with two dwelling units. two designs have been submitted for the replacement structure. design option a includes a four story design, and design option b includes a three-story design. it has come to my attention option b set has been incorrectly ordered within the commission packet. i have additional copies for you upon request of option b. since the publication of this case report, the department has not received additional

correspondence from the public. while the planning department supports the general concept of maximizing density on-site, design option a does not comply with the residential design guidelines. the department is in support of project scale and massing and design option b. should the planning commission approve design option a, the department recommends the following conditions to improve the project scale, massing, and design. residential design comments include the limit of the massing of the building to be a maximum of three stories, a partial fourth floor set back 15 feet from the front building wall, incorporating a gabled, hipped or otherwise shaped roof form with a -- with or without a dormer windows may be permitted. if the fourth story is approved with a shaped roof as proposed,

it should demonstrate two guideline principles: one, reflect the form of the adjacent shaped roof, two, be in scale with the adjacent building which steps with the slope of the street. limit the fourth story of the building to the third rail wall of the adjacent building at 236 clipper street. reduce the architectural parapet by half the proposed height. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. my name's lucas eastwood. i am project sponsor here. i bought this inhabitable home on an rh-2 lot about a year

ago, applied for two four story buildings. it became clear that this wasn't something that my immediately adjacent neighbors supported. i offered a three unit scheme, you know, i'm -- i wouldn't say i'm stuck in the middle, but on one hand, i think the maximizing the rh-2 is more of a -- where the policy drives me and the neighbors are sort of driving me a little bit more towards a smaller, scaled back version of this 'cause i think they prefer the single-family home nature of the block. thanks. >> hi. i'm brett gladstone and project architect is behind me. just a couple statements about the project staff report. there's two places only i understand that the current design differs from the staff report. staff didn't tell you exactly what they meant bhi a shaped roof, so i'm going to tell you. one is the shaped roof, one is

the parapet. we increased the parapet to hide the fourth floor. they would like the parapet to stay low. and the only other difference between the fourth floor design we have submitted and staff's is staff would like it, as we understand it, to be as followed -- please turn on the overhead. i have a -- like this today, this is drawn from the architect's plans, we have a 7.6-foot ceiling here. they want us, according to the report, to change this roof to the slope of this roof. this roof slope matches the slope of the roof -- the building at the side. they would like it much more sloped to match this roof, as well. in fact, as we understand it, they want to do something that looks like -- like the following -- and maybe i

misunderstand, but as i understand it, they want our top floor to look like this. that top floor would leave a ceiling height of 9 feet here -- 7 foot here, excuse me. i misread that. 7 foot here, so the livable area here on the top floor are very small. for those commissioners who do want a fourth floor, and it's your choice, just keep in mind that sloping the floor as planning wants, would only create a 7-foot ceiling, and that's only at the middle. and why should we do that? this family now lives in a building of three stories where they have a 7-foot ceiling here. they have a roof dormer here. it's very possible, this family may want to someday increase their floor like this. currently, they live only in about this area of their top

floor. this area is 3 feet here, 3 feet here. if they really want to have more of a room than they have here, and they want to go here, aren't we really discouraging that by suggesting that our roof come down here? will they be allowed to bring theirs up to that point if our roof comes like this or steeper? that's an issue, and i think you should consider that. in fact, this shows that that same building -- this is our building. note that building next door that they want us to emulate has a peaked roof here, which is only 3.4 feet above our roof here. that was before we created a shaped roof. please keep in mind, the staff report has read to you their wording, which said gabled roof, sloped roof, or some other shaped roof. the "or" is very important here because they didn't say exactly what they want. it's up to you to decide what that means, and i'm suggesting

that what we've designed with this shape should probably work pretty well. again, this -- this slope is designed to be the same slope as the building next door at 228, and that was what the architect had in mind. that is what i understand the sole differences are. keep in mind that already, if you look at your plans, we have cutback the fourth floor many times to make staff more happy about the fourth floor. we increased it from about 8 feet at the front to a set back now of 15 feet, which matches exactly what staff is suggesting to you. we had the fourth floor go further into the rear. we've cut that back 4 feet. if you look at the floor plan of the top floor, you'll see it's not huge. there's room for a stair, a bathroom, and a bedroom. if we slope that roof much

more, we're going to lose probably a bathroom. we slope it too much, we lose the stair, and of course, that's not worth having a bedroom. and those of you who may support a three story building may think that's just fine, but i do want to illustrate for those of you that support a fourth, please be careful how you slap the top floor, you could have the stair without a bathroom, but then, you have a master bedroom with a bathroom on the lower floor, it's not ideal. it might as well be three. i'd also like to mention that i'd like you to look at a drawing -- or, rather, the shadow study that was put up -- put together by the opposition. and what i'm going to put up here is their light study based on our previous drawing. i say previous drawing because

our current drawing no longer has this box where i put an "x," and i also want to point out that this is a very tall wall that this neighbor shares with our lot. really, anyone in the back yard here really does not perceive our first floor, which is right behind this wall. so to these people, it's really a three-story building if you include our fourth floor. those of you who don't want to include it, you can see that they see a two-story-type building, not the lower floor. and again, this portion has already been completely removed on the fourth story drawing. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. so we'll open this item up for public comment. and you can lineup on the screen side of the room and approach in any order.

>> hello. my name is johanna roberts. i am the property owner that we were just speaking about, at 236 clipper. we are here to express our support for the two-unit, three-story proposal that katie spoke about that's been submitted to the department and has their approval. and i want to make clear, mr. eastwood said we're insisting on a single-family model. we're not. i've lived in san francisco for 21 years, and i certainly understand what the commission's goals are and the options for affordable housing options for families. our home, family of five, we have 1800 square feet. my son is pretty large, but we manage to live well there with five of us. this is 3600 square feet, the three story that we're in

support of, two units, that's real options for families. in terms of the impact on our property, i would like to talk about that shadow analysis report that we were just discussing because i do think the fourth story proposal has such a detrimental impact on our privacy and our access to light. we really tried to focus on those objective things and not talk about what should or shouldn't be on this lot, but what is the real impact on our property? and so just to show a few pieces from that study -- if i can have the overhead. here, you see a 3-ddepiction. this is my home. this is the 3-d rendering of the fourth story proposal that we are not in support of.

you see there are two roof decks that are looking down into our yards and in many instances, down into our living spaces? just to make that clear, the same shading analysis that was sent to the commission -- you already have it in your file. this is from our rear yard looking up at that 3-d rendering. even if one of those decks is not part of the proposal, we still have another deck that's really looking right down into our yard, into our deck, and in many instances, directly down into our living space. in fact here, this is a depicktion of our master bedroom. it's just such a direct sight line right into our living space in the rear of our home. the three story proposal has one deck. there's still a deck here, it's just lower, and it doesn't have the same massive impact to the back of our home, which is where we live most of our lives. the four story proposal, the

impact on our sky lights -- is in the shading analysis on the overhead is red. >> clerk: thank you ma'am, your time is up: ma'am, your time is up. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. gene degaulski. i'm representing 228 clipper, which is the property on the other side of the proposed house. the four story proposal is a surprise to me because we had some meetings with -- over the past four or five months after the original plan was set forth, and we worked with lucas eastwood on a project that

would be acceptable to the neighborhood. nobody in the neighborhood, i believe, was objecting to a two -- they said we only wanted a single-family home. that's not true. after four or five months of planning, eastwood came up with a three-story plan that was acceptable to all of us. we made concessions, he made some concessions. so i don't understand why we're reissuing this four-story plan. just for the record, we're very vehemently opposed to this four-story building. the four-story building comes out into the back yard, beyond the other houses. when you look out of 228 clipper, out of the living room, you're going to be looking up, straight up at a two story high wall. it's just -- it's pretty much ridiculous. on the other hand, meeting with lucas, they're very -- very workable on the three-story plan.

and as much as we're opposed to the four-story plan, we support the three-story plan. the three-story plan is acceptable for the -- for most of the neighbors. it's good for the neighborhood. i think it's good for the city. it's good for eastwood. he can get his project going. i think it satisfies family housing criteria. it's almost 4,000 square feet of area, so you could have two -- you know, two units, 2,000 square feet. i was raised in a small home, about 1200 square feet. you know, four children, mother, father. we lived very nicely in that. so a 2,000 square foot home, to me, would be a luxury. the top unit in the three-story plan has four bedrooms and four bathrooms, so that's a very large -- very large

accommodating structure, i think. if you cut out the garage, the lower unit could have three or four bedrooms and two bathrooms, and this is in the three-story plan. so i think the three-story plan certainly provides them a good sizeable project. it's not just a building. this is a neighborhood, this is something that some of the neighbors are going to probably spend the rest of their lives looking out on this property, so we just want to make sure that the -- that the monster house -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is philip fleury, and i've been a resident of san francisco for 24 years. for the last 13 years, i've been a resident of noe valley. i'm concerned with the height and the bulk of this project because its scale is not

congruent with the existing scale of homes on this block. the project initially started out at a four story 5,000 square foot plus building with two apartments. we were strongly opposed to this massive structure. can you please have the overhead. so as you can see highlight index yellow, they've skuged limiting the massing of the building to three floor. also limiting the who are son cal and vertical addition of the primary rear wool. this is nopd one. a little later, we see the same conditions stipulated in nopdr number two. finally, in nopdr number three, the rdat team has specified the restriction of limiting the fourth floor to the adjacent

welling of 232 clipper street. this removes 17 feet. this will look like a crow's nest, and it makes no sense having this 20 foot deep by 25 foot wide pop up. we do not have a preference for a single-family home, but we welcome a duplex or a multifamily building so long as within scale of the existing homes nearby. we understand that we face a housing crisis and adding another unit to this lot will help. i've also brought two images. those are images that i've taken to give you a sense of what the neighborhood looks like. as you can see in the first image here, when looking from 232 south wards, you'll see that all the buildings across the street are single-family homes, one story above garage. they're small homes. now if you're looking back over

232 from the south, you'll see mostly two and three-story homes. the 232 project is here in the brown on the right. the current design has about 4,000 square feet of habitable space in two units. that's nearly twice as large as 236 on the left. it's more than twice as much as my building right behind, and it's more than 50% larger than 228 clipper here on the right. this structure will be -- this four story structure will be twice as large or more than the majority of the buildings on the block. it just does not fit into the current scale of this block of homes. fortunately, the project sponsor finally came up with a three story proposal last month. >> president hillis: thank you, sir. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners.

i'm going to talk about square footage a little bit. my name is paul lamoreaux. we live at 246 clipper for 19 years. to maximize profits, sometimes developers build with the idea that they need to include as much square footage as possible into construction regardless of considerations for mass, scale, privacy and liveability. this is the case for the four story design that the project sponsor submitted initially, and that is why there's a ground swell of opposition from the surrounding neighbors. the plan for the four story option includes unnecessarily large and what will turn into unnecessarily expensive units. i'm here to ask the commission to support the three story option for 232 clipper street in interest of providing a relatively -- provide relatively affordable for future renters and buyers of these units. the three story building with units at 2482 square feet and

1,032 square feet, is in alignment with existing units on this block. i wanted to show this just quickly. it's just showing the relative square footage in the neighborhood units. i also want to add that my wife and i are raising our three children in our 1800 square foot home. i urge you to reject the plans for the four story monster duplex and instead approve the three story plans that were submitted to the department. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is julie tran, and i live -- my family and i live at 240 clipper, which is two doors west of the building project. we are not the oldest people on the block, but we live in the oldest house in the block. i think we live in the original farmhouse on clipper street, and the building project, i think it belonged to our property. it was the stable for our house. it's why it's one story.

here is my house. [inaudible] >> the yellow house is my house. it -- it goes deep into the property, but as you can see, it's very narrow. and as a result of it being very narrow, we are freestanding on one side. that means that our windows -- we have windows going back. our bathroom, our bedroom, is freestanding going back to the shadow study that my neighbors at 236 clipper did, i drew in where our windows are. the biggest problem with this four story proposal is that all of us who live on clipper street, those of you who have travelled on clipper street, you know it's a bit of a thoroughfare. we all live in the back of our homes, and that yard, that shared greenery that we all share, that's where we get some quiet. so if this four story and these decks are we are mited --

permitted, every neighbor on this block is going to resent this developer and the people who live there because we will no longer have our privacy. they will be looking directly into brian and johanna's bedroom, directly into our bedroom, directly into our bathroom, we have no curtains because no one can see in. we all are a closely knit neighborhood that need that shared space in the back yard so that we can have some quiet and some liveability because this street is so busy. we've lived there -- we've lost six cats to that street. that's how crazy busy it is, so we ask that you do what you can to -- to strike a fairness to the people who have lived there for a long time and the people who have done work on their homes. we have never changed the foot -- the footprint of our home. other people who have moved out have done it in a very graceful

way, respectful of each other's privacy, and this property does not do that. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is michael leriarti, and i live in the house directly back and one door over. that shade study that you just saw, that's going to be my view. it looks directly into bathrooms, into bedrooms, to kitchens, just into the privacy of our lives. that is my main concern. i have -- it's a two unit building. i rent out the second floor. it's 1200 square feet. i had a family there for seven years. i don't see why 2400, just blowing out the size and the affordable is something that's a good idea. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> i do support the three-story. >> president hillis: thank

you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is ben shapiro. i'm a resident of san francisco and i'm a yimby supporter, and i'm here to support this development and the four-story design. i understand everybody's concerns, and i empathize with them. however, i believe that the housing crisis and the number of people that would be able to live in this property if we were able to maximize the rooms is more important. the push back of these developments is what's creating this housing crisis and the polarization of their cities, and if we can allow developers to do their jobs, it will alleviate pressure on the market and will allow people to live in san francisco and ease the housing crisis. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is janice levy, and i live directly across from 232 clipper street. i've been in my house for 25

years. i urge you to approve the three-story version, not the four. as some of my neighbors have describes, clipper street, on one side, is primarily one story over garage built around 1890. my house was built in 1890. most of the houses on the south side are had that vintage. on the north side where this property is, i'd say built between maybe 1890 to the 1930's, 40's, at the latest. so the new -- the new structure is going to be a significant change to the look of the street, and i think we can at least make it consistent in terms of the height, if not clearly -- it's not going to be consistent in terms of the style. and in terms of the two units,

san francisco is a diverse city, and different people will have different needs in terms of the size and in terms of their budgets, so i don't see a problem with having two different sized units in the building. so please keep the height consistent with the other structures and approve the three stories. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is helen varantinos. i live up the block but i'm here to support my immediate neighbors. mr. eastwood doesn't have to put a fourth floor in the building to make two family size condos. he can build a spashs apartment on the first floor if he gets rid of the garage. this is the perfect example of a transit oriented development and as such, it does not need a garage. if mr. eastwood chooses to forgo the garage, he can still

have two large size apartments of two bedrooms and three bedrooms each that can nicely accommodate any family. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good morning -- i'm sorry. good afternoon. i live less than a block away from the subject property on clipper street. i'm here to support my clipper street neighbors and urge you to keep the scale and affordability in mind when considering the replacement of the current structure at 232 clipper street. maximizing profits encouraging developers to build with one goal in mind and that is to build with maximum square footage without consideration for mass, scale, privacy, light, and liveability, and that is why you have two sets of plans for you: one for a four-story option that will certainly deprive the adjacent

neighbors from light, area and privacy, and another for a three-story option that will only be 500 square feet smaller than the four-story proposal but has less of a negative impact on the surrounding neighbors and looks more in line with the homes in area. the truth is that the four-story options not only encroaches on the neighbor's light, air, privacy but also looks more like an outsourced crow's net, and the only reason that is in the packet as an option is the added 500 square feet which maximizes mr. east wood's profits. overhead, please. make no mistake, this is not about unit equity or providing large enough units for families with children. each of the units in a three-story option is large enough to accommodate families. if eastwood insists on providing three units in

each -- bedrooms in each unit, you can simply get rid of the garage to use the space for the third bedroom in the ground floor unit. commissioners, i'd like to draw your attention to what's at stake here: affordability for future residents and liveability for current ones. a three story option will provide relative affordablity for at least one of the two units while meeting the neighbors halfway on the liveability issue. that is why i urge you to reject the crow's nest and approve the three-story option. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. [inaudible] >> good evening. commissioners. audie noel with neighborhood council. what kind of a logic are used for the four story -- the fourth floor that is going to help our housing crisis? i just don't get it. what kind of a cognitive

dissonance do we have when that gentleman was arguing for adding the fourth story, which is as mr. pritchard mentioned is nothing but a crow's nest. it's less than 500 square feet, and what kind of a liveability would that be? so i just want to, you know, draw your attention to the fact that this building, if it was to be built as a three-story structure versus the four story structure, the difference is less than 500 square feet, commissioners. so if you're going to pass the four-story option, you're basically making the life of the surrounding neighbors a living hell, versus the three-story option which is only, the way that it's been drawn, less than 500 square feet from the three-story option. here, i have a proposal for you. why don't we add that 500 square feet by getting rid of the garage? i do remember it was only a

year ago ago or 1 -- year ago or 1.5 years ago when you voted for 437 hoffman to get rid of the garage. president hillis, you were here when you actually spoke to that. get rid of the garage and just have the house as-is without adding another floor. 437 hoffman was nowhere near the two public transportation lines of j-church and to dwis adddwis -- divisadero. so let's actually put our money where our mouth is and give it transit oriented development of three stories. another idea. how about making this two equal size -- if the unit equity is an issue, let's have two equal size units, second floor, third floor, and how about the first floor, turn it into an a.d.u. i understand, maybe that's not legal, but you've had projects before you, when you ask the project sponsor to actually put

the room there, put the space there, and come back and build the a.d.u. later. here, they could have two equal sized units, floor number two, newport beach three, and have the a.d.u. behind the garage. i was at city hall where mr. gladstone was in monday, and he was arguing in support of supervisor tang's proposal for an added a.d.u. for new construction. so we are here. this is mr. gladstone's chance to convince his client to do the same thing. so we have multiple options here. we don't have to go for a fourth story, which is crow's net. [please stand by]

>> we live in a city. we lived in a growing city where there are going to be decks. this is going to set a precedence where we are going to have four-story buildings, may

be also more aid to use. the more livable area you allow in this unit, the more likely it will be that we will see nad you in the future. buildable area is important. it is important especially in areas that have been artificially down zoned low density like the valley. that extra bedroom is important. we should be mac at george maximizing the buildable area in all of these low density areas and that is step 12 up zoning. i would love to see this zoned four. if you guys are prepared to say a unit of housing on every story, that would be fantastic. but we cannot have this kind of arbitrary decision-making where just because a neighbor doesn't want somebody to look at them, you know, you are not a turtle. you are not entitled to everything you can see. in fact, we live in a city. i have neighbors who can see through my windows.

sometimes that is embarrassing. it is ok. i get through the experience. i have purchased curtains and i can tell people where to buy them. we can subsidize courage and purchasing throughout the area. i'm sure that would be less expensive than all of these hearings where we debate what is legally allowed. someone should be able to build what is legally allowed. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? >> president hillis: i think you have already spoken we may have questions. >> i think this is a really important project for the valley. because it is one of a few real demolitions that have occurred in the valley in the last four years. i can think of four appear to have them wear when you you had the mandatory do you are thing. i wanted to lay it out there. i think option b. is the way to

go. the three-story one. i think the neighbors are right and you need to do it. i think the draft motion says option b. is right. it says it meets a residential design guidelines in the findings for a conditional use. it also says that it also matches the zoning which is two. it does allow for a owner-occupied unit and may be a unit that is rented. we have not heard what the tendency is but these condos, what will they be? i have no clue. nothing anywhere about that. i think it will be interesting to know. i want to raise the issue of the excavation in the rear yard. i think that's really important. i think the rear yard is important. this is an overhead from the pocket. please. you can see, there's a lot of trees there. they are high canopy. i want to show you a comparison. this is the yard that was near

me, and all those trees are gone now. here is the overhead. this is the yard. you can see a lot of trees around, but not to their. here is a close-up of it. this is not a rendering. this is the actual yard that they created. that raises the issue of the lower floor. ok? if you are going to do that lower floor and option see, as it is now, you need to have a condition that they have a refrigerator that has a freezer. this looks just like everything i've seen where they have a wine refrigerator. no one -- it sounds stupid. i raised it at the a.d.u. hearing. no one can live comfortably without a freezer. you have to have ice cubes and ice cream. you have to have something you can put in your microwave to make dinner at 10:00 at night when you get home from the planning commission. my suggestion is that -- and i

want to show this. this was just handed out. just to match the real one near me. that plan looks just like what i showed you there. it is a concern of the excavation and the canopy. my suggestion is the lower flow -- floor behind the garage becomes a public living space of the larger units. the second floor becomes the bedrooms, on the top floor becomes a nice two bedroom that can be rented or what ever. however, they are going to make money off this speculative project. it is two and it does meet the requirements. you know, the design. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to commissioners. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: it is highly unusual that we have to look at two proposals and say where are the pros and cons?