two-foot race to allow g thearage entry. -- the garage entry. they have disguise any possible view of a theddition in the back. the floor plan is a reasonable one. you have the dining room, living room, kitchen and family room. the guest room is down below. it is all connected. i am happy with the project. i think it is a very good project. >> maybe i missed something. why is it that the garage is unusable? since there is an existing garage now? >> the recommended slope of the

driveway is 8%-10%. the existing driveway is 34%. we could not even get close. >> nobody has ever parked in there? is that correct? what is an average car? >> [inaudible] >> i guess mr. donaldson is in sacramento or washington dc. i will play the historical conservationist. i do not like this project. i think the idea is egregious. i think it overwhelms the historic character of the house itself. the problem i have is that under ceqa and other different kinds

of court cases, it seems as though the interpretation of what is character defining and respected as a historic resources, ceqa is for the benefit of the public. what has been happening over the years is that the interpretation of the public benefit has been narrowed to where you are supposed to be able to see it from the street. that is why it is important that the city take a different tact in reducing the historic landmark work. they may have to change that, too. it does not just apply to those things that you can see from the street. in my definition of a historic resources, that is the entire building. it is not just limited to what somebody walking down the sidewalk can see. if i am going to follow the ceqa laws, i cannot say that addition

to the rear has any egregious impact on the building. i personally feel that way. i understand raising the building, that is not as much of a problem. you basically can still see the historic character of the building. that said, i still think that the addition is too big. i understand that is not expanding did that much beyond some of the other buildings in the neighborhood, but i do have problems with it. that is all i have for now. that is all i have. i was waiting for other people. >> commissioner. >> nobody wants to say anything? >> i do not know that the size of the addition, the impact, not

necessarily the size of the addition of faxed --affects it. i would move to not take dr and approve the project. >> is there a second? >> i just wanted to express my appreciation to the commissioner for stating policy over something that has bothered me for quite some time. from the street or from whatever vantage point, if you are small, you will not see it for sure. this is what this is really all about. i am glad for that expectation. i do like the clarification of policies size and the bulky nests of the rear addition.

i am not comfortable with having gotten that clarification that i feel really good about. >> i just wanted to add something along the policy and of things. there were statements that were made that one of the preservation planners had indicated that it was her feeling that if this was going to be considered a contributor to the historic district that there had not been enough work done to determine whether or not that district have actually existed or what the character defining features were. the department has moved ahead and gone ahead with this project anyway. the friend that i work with does historical preservation work. years ago, we were involved in a similar situation where the dr

requestoor challenged her design. the department, under the claimed that there was a historic district in the area, the department at that time, and perhaps this is not a good policy, maybe it is a change of approach, at that time forced the property owner to survey 80 properties in the neighborhood for which she hired us to undertake. i am telling you, it was not cheap. it seemed at the time to be somewhat of a burden on the property owner. there must be a way that in these kinds of situations there can be a little bit more definitive idea or process of

something whereby there could be at least a preliminary work done on what the defining features might be on a potential historic district and thereby inform these kinds of projects a little bit more definitively. >> commissioners fung. >> i am going to go ahead and second the motion to approve. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to comment on the department's line. i think the discussion we are having is exactly the opposite. by and not trying to discredit the department's recommendation. -- i am not trying to discredit the department's recommendation.

together with the historic preservation commission, we could come to acceptable terms with how we approach the project. there is the potential. this really constitutes what is clear to us. it should not be in front of us. we need ourselves to work harder to really understand what the best course of action is. at this moment, i would gravitate towards the analysis. commissioner? >> i am the deferring in that direction. once you lose a historical resource or damage it, you cannot get it back. it is not like building a new building. old buildings that your making an improvement to, we should

better understand the implications of what we are looking at. i do not feel comfortable with commissioner sugaya's expertise in this area. >> commissioner antonini. >> it was pointed out that staff has commented on the thedr reform, this would not be referred to the commission. we need to have an understanding between staff and the commission. it seems that staff has made a very strong case not to take dr or not to refer it. it is one of those that we will have to look at on the historical and of it. there seems to be a variance of opinion. >> there is a motion and a second to not take as proposed current >>aye. >> no.

>> that motion fails to-4. -- 2-4. >> i am not ready to deny the project. that is not in the cards for me. i do not have a specific direction except my concern is the way the addition has been handled. that does not seem like a lot of direction to be given to the project architect. i do not know, dr requestor,s -- >> i have eight questions, is this something we would want the historic preservation committee

to weigh in on? the centers around the historic nature. it seems like maybe having their input would be helpful. >> the motion failed. what does that mean in terms of the project? >> you have to take some action. you have to make an excuse to modify the project, continue the item. otherwise, the project is approved. >> in this case? that is what i wanted communication on. >> they wanted to continue the project with births -- specific direction to staff. that could further evaluate the project and address the historic nature of the building and how to minimize this additional impact on the character.

that is one option. >> what are the implications of a 4-2 vote against? >> if the indication is to take dr. under the circumstances? >> the motion failed. there is no action. if be a commission took no action, then the project moves on. >> that is what i wanted people to be aware of. >> the project planner is actually in attendance. >> michael smith, planning department. i understand where commissioners sugaya is coming from and the direction he wants to go with this. if he wanted to take dr on the

project and give a certain amount of directing to come up with a position coming up with the character of the building, i can do that. >> i will make a motion to take dr. and continue the project under the motion of the staff. i would also like you to confer with commissioners martinez if you would. >> continue to a specific date? the you just want to take the dr? >> as a commissioner, i would like to see this again. >> would you like to see the final outcome of it? >> there is the possibility, maybe i'm being optimistic, with

the proposed changes that the dr would be dropped. it depends on your preference. it seems like you could allow the possibility to stay open if you do not continue it. >> we can just go ahead and say something at this point. >> my brain is not working right. >> i would like to work with the staff and the two preservation commissioners. i think that is what i moved. >> i am picking that up. >> i will like to ask both parties to take some of the animosity out of their communications, especially when it deals with the state of sacramento. i would also like to completely

neutral read what was sent to me. not to the endorsement of the building design. it is a major distinction that it comes to where we are presenting. it includes the acceptance of the building. for the two parties to come to terms. then we will look forward with the more modest -- or whatever the particular building design is. if it is the stork -- acceptable under historic guidelines. that would be my layman's interpretation of what is wrong. >> if this would move forward with the input from commissioners sugaya, that would be input from historical preservation.

if the idea was appropriate to minimize this. what i think is a little bit disturbing as we do have the preservation commission. i think staff has the latitude and the ability to move that if they feel that they need their input. staff did not feel that was the case here. the commission was disagreeing and saying that it was significant enough. we have said enough. the direction has been set. the project moves forward with the input from the historic preservation commission as to the changes that might be appropriate. does that summarize? >> commissioners on the motion to take dr and have the sponsor work with staff? commissioner anthony? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> so moved, commissioners. you are now on the final item of your calendar. public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? general public comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned.

i was just driving around minding my own business... when it came out of nowhere. suddenly, there were lights all around me. i'm like, "they're coming for me!" yeah, it was crazy. i just never thought they'd find me. not out here. it doesn't matter where you drive. if you don't buckle up, you will get caught. cops are cracking down all across the country. click it or ticket.

>> welcome to "culture wire." today we're headed to smpling f. camera works, a premiere venue for artists working in photographer, video, and digital media. the latest exhibition lists clearness as a set of political alliances and possibilities that it is behind the sphere of dominant gay and lesbian culture. the curator fills us in on the process of creating this thoughtful exhibition. and what she would like you to take away from it. >> i co-cureated with danny, a chicago-based writer and curator. the conceptual framework is what it means to be clear and radical for our generation. clearness as a set of political alliances and possibilities, not necessarily related to institutions of gender and swam

formativity. danny and i wanted the show to feel funky and to have a really tangible quality to it. so part of that was incorporated handmade objects and installations and beautifully printed photographs and videos. there is also a lot of opportunities to participate and to take postcards or to get the photo taken or sit within a tent made out of afghan blankets to watch videos. the exhibition is organized in three distinct galleries. in gallery one, which is the gallery designated to clear activism, there is an installation by the oakland-based collaboration and it's called "unleashed power." it's all focused on one protest

that happened in chicago in 1991 with the activist organization act up, which was protesting the inadequate health care for people living in aids, and specifically it focuses on an act of police violence that occurred at that protest. the thing that is really interesting for me about that piece is that it brings us back 20 years to what clear activism looked like at the height of the aids crisis. gallery two features work that is related to intentionally communities that exist both within cities, also in rural spaces, and transient communities as well. the return features a no madic clear tribe, the people who join this tribe are often in various states of transition themselves, whether it's leaving behind previous gender assignments or corporate jobs

or a life within cities. a lot of the work featured in the exhibition and a lot of the installations are handmade objects. there is a lot of do-it-yourself aesthetic and that handmade do-it-yourself feeling is something that mimics the idea and the reality of the alternative world making that we're trying to represent here as far as the self-sufficient community goes. gallery three features work that relates to the ideas of self-determinenism, alternative world making and utopia. visits can still participate in this -- visitors can still participate in this project. during the opening, we invite visitors to come in and try on

these costumes, pose in front of the backdrop. he was really inspired by comic books that he read as growing up and thinks of this space as a post-apocalyptic monster portrait gallery where people can remain genderless once they put on the costumes. we think it's important that this be happening in san francisco, which is considered an ekpe center of the queer actual cure. the majority of the queer cultural events happen in june which has been designated as the pride month. which to me translates as the period of time in which people can be in clear arts and culture. in september, it's hashingening back to that and proving that this is something that is scon significantly happenin