have chosen to attempt to control the property through a public process. if they wanted to control this property, they should have just bought it. in fact, they are in contract to purchase it multiple times. but dropped out of the purchase contract each time. the current owners have been through a long and thorough process with the planning department who has found the project fully compliant with all codes. despite this, the neighbor continues to try to limit modification claiming restriction to light and air. this is just another obstructionist tactic. we respectfully ask that you do not dr this project and submit it without modification. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the public to please

turn off any mobile devices that sound off during the proceedings. thank you very much. >> hi. i'm tom. i come to the commission today, thank you for the time as a neighbor to the project. i'm willing also a professor at stanford university and documentation conservation of modern monuments and i'm a current member of the national board. having been through a project ourselves, my wife and i recently renovated a house in the neighborhood. i'm very disappointed at the valuable time and attention of the planning commission that has been wasted on a project that in my view is obviously compliant with the planning

code. and these are the few points why i think it is compliant with the planning code. first, the project is far within limits of the buildable envelope. no. 2. barely visible from the public right of way. no. 3, no measurable impact on neighbor especially light and air, no. 4, set backs for the project are the same as applied throughout san francisco. therefore, no further action should be proceeded by the commission. also, because of my experience with the no cal board and national board, we are often presented with advocacy for projects and i have advocated on both side both pro and con -- for these

projects. let me comment on these projects. let me remind you that both forces say the house is not historical icon occur with these analysis but the project analysis has accepted the d r.'s regulator's case and restrict meeting of historical standards and sacrificing along the way. there have been compromises made as mr. hoffman admits. with all of this in mind, i ask that you allow them to build this house as designed and that you do not take discretionary review and approve the project as submitted without modification. thank you for

your time. good afternoon, commissioners, thank you forgive -- for -- giving me time to speak today. we are glad to see them move into our neighborhood and also very excited to see what they would do with the home. i walked by their house almost everyday on my way. the design to the neighborhood and in the neighbor of 3 and 4 story houses particularly along the

wall. i'm here to ask you to not take the dr's request. thanks for your time. >> i live in bruno heights. i'm although also a current member of the design review board. i know john as a professional colleague and a friend. i'm a licensed architect and have

been in san francisco for 25 years and i have been here for 25 years. i'm here to speak about this issue because it comes up quite a bit. when i was going through the packet in reading the reason why dr was filed for light and air and saw the pictures and came across this that these three windows are the reason the dr is filed for light and air and seeing that there are planting it out as they have blocking off light and air, i was astonished. of all my years of doing this, it's completely disingenuous. i

think that is the mockery. specifically about property line windows. they are not protected. they get covered up all the time. these windows in this room will continue to provide considerable light and air into this little room. that said. it's been a long standing good neighbor standard, sometimes planning department requesting -- based on a small

light well. i think this decision or concession will provide full access to light and air at the windows. this is far and above the standard of just the three feet right at the windows that's typically been asked by the department. thank you. i'm john's wife. we bought one sprus which is a place where we could bring up our boys in one setting and it would allow us an as a place to accommodate our parents. we

have sacrificed a lot and accepted every ruling and modified our plans when asked by the planning department. we are not asking for any special treatment. we are not asking for an exception to the rules. we are simply asking to be treated fairly to be allowed to enjoy the same rights of every homeowner in san francisco. in turn, our neighbor needs to be held to the same rules and we have communicated fully throughout the process. now we are asking to you prove the project as submitted and not take discretionary review as there is nothing that warrants it in anyway. thank you so much for your time today. >> thank you, any other speakers in favor of the project sponsor? seeing none,

dr request or you have 2 minute rebuttal. thank you, i will try to avoid responding and deal with the since they have purchased the property. it's not that it was made up in this d r process. more importantly. forget the report. look at your own staff report. your own staff concludes this is a historic resources and character defining resource is a setback and you have received reports from another historic architect that could reach exact same conclusion. multiple reports says it's not a historic resources and i haven't seen them and i don't

think you have either. if we are trying to just look at this as an objective way and take some personal an animosity out of it, we take out the proposal and this is the existing condition. this is the character defining feature that mr. turn bowl identified as your staff agreed with as a story step up. that's what makes it as one of the main things. it's the first thing that staff list. this is the proposed remodel. completely eliminates the character defining feature. it seems similar toll me that that is an impact that warrants further environmental review but discretionary review. the compromise we have propose is to take the visual keeps the historic nature intact. i think

it's a reasonable compromise that everyone should be able to live with. thank you. >> you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> project sponsor. there are a couple key points to mention here, we have accepted the report and met every standard as described by staff. there are other character defining features but the excerpt pulled from the report is just that. the key aspects of adding to historic structure is done very clearly through working very hard with staff in that regard. the impacts of this project are barely visible from the street. they are barely visible from

public right of way. from the majority of public right of way. the dr is continue to go restrict access. we have done this in the most visible way possible. it's impossible to do this without affecting someone. as they are talking about compromise, this shift of mass from east to west is not a shift of mass. there is way to shift it to in the back. so in the spirit of compromises. we have done the most to minimally add, keeping it invisible for the majority of the public and

we've done so in a thoughtful way. we hope that you will prove our project and not take discretionary review. >> that conclude the public hearing and open up for commissioners questions. >> i have a question for staff. there was a lot of comment about the property line window which i know we are not protected but these are our h 1 detached homes as one would expect. they are not? this is r h 1. no required detach. is there an existing separation on the ground floor between the two houses? >> no, the garage on the one sprus property goes to the property line. >> okay. but there is appears

to be a setback on the 33 sprus where those property line windows are set off with property line, i'm not sure. they are on the line. okay. it's like a bay that projects. >> okay. i understand that now. i think with all the years that i have been involved with the property lines, while they are not protected we ask the project sponsors to set off 3 feet which is typically a reasonable amount for light and air although it's not something they would have to do per code and in this case i understand project sponsors go on the entire length of the addition even though there is no windows there. that's generally my question. a few comments is that there are a lot of similarities between this case and the one that proceeded it.

not only mid century moderns but a second bay tradition and talk about 1-2 story massing. i'm not an expert on this tradition to know whether you have to have a step like a one floor area and 2 floor area to be in keeping with that particular thing or as is the case here. project sponsor to make his addition. i don't know if you have any comments on that. >> that was within the preservation review and i'm, which is done by different staff so i can't really comment on that for the commentary the preservation review by the staff which is some contention by the dr request or that they don't agree with that but with the report we have received that has indicated what is

being done is consistent with the historical value of the house and it does not detract from it. that was one of the two issues and the second issue dr request or brought up was the light and air issue and that was addressed by the setback and property line windows and there is an elevation change although it does not involve that particular addition in that set of windows but in general, 33 sprus sits above theel elevation of no. 1 sprus. i'm not sure if there is something i consider to be extraordinary and unusual here. >> i think this is like the last case. i don't see anything that is exceptional or extraordinary, obviously people don't like to lose their views and views are not protected. i

move to accept the proposal. >> second. on that motion to not take dr and prove the project as proposed? commissioner antonini, ayes. that motion pass 6-0 with commissioner sugaya being recused. that will place you on your final calendar items no. 15, a b and c. x c and v. 254th street request for determination of compliance and conditional use and variations. >> good afternoon. the question before you is regards to the project for 250, 4th street which includes the demolition

of a building occupied by theological university. the construction of a new 11 story 220 room with a ground floor and restaurant and bar. it would include no parking but 10 bicycle parking spaces. it's located in the south of market neighborhood with the zoning district. and the 130 l boulton district. across 4th street across clemente tina street. i would like to focus on a number of the policy and regulatory issues. in order to proceed, the project would require determination and compliance. the coda allows the project to

providing the commission meets it's findings. tour bus loading spaces and reduction of ground level. in your packet is a summary of the information. allow a tourist hotel of 220 guest rooms and to a how a restaurant and bar use within the soma yusdz and family youth district the department believes the conditional use is warranted in that there is a projected shortage of use. the uses will not be detriment to the health and environment. restaurant and bars and hotels are not for the specific types of eating establishments for the environments of youth and family. it's very typical for

restaurants and bars. lastly the project requires variances from section 145 to allow hotel lobby for the ground floor frontage to allow from the frontage along clem tina street. determination of compliance. in conclusion the department supports the project because it meets the goals and plans of the tourist economy with ground floor amenities with retail and visitor center of the city. it's located near public transit including the convention center. the project is necessary and desirable and staff recommends the commission approves the project with conditions. thank you and i'm

available for questions. >> project sponsor? >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission, director ram, i'm ruben, with juns and rose. i was here when the matter came up for hearing on january 17th. we continued at that time to do some additional outreach that we were requested to do. it took longer than we anticipated. we had four live meetings and e-mails and telephone calls and necessary communication. i understood our charge at that point to have meetings in good faith and am very comfortable to report to the commission that we did that. we did not end up with a

resolution. you can see behind me that there is opposition here from those community groups. however, we do have a lot of support for this project and have had a lot of support along the way aside from your own staff. john and todd have been supportive and they will be speak negative -- speaking in favor and 182 jobs available for entry level positions in the neighborhood and the consortium have written a letter of support. the convention and visitors center is here to support. there is opposition and they are here and will express themselves. the owner and developer is here as well and can answer questions and if things come up

that i don't know i will be able to consult with them. we would like to now show you the project. >> my name is cory, i'm with architectural design and we are here on behalf of the sponsor to be at the proposed hotel. we have some images that could be brought up. thank you. the proposed hotel consist of 220 hotel rooms and ground floor commercial space with associated support space. the project sight is at the corner of clem tina. well the existing

building, 2 story commercial building which will be demolished for our project is across the street from the central future subway stop which will be immediately to the east. next slide, please. do you do that or do i do that. single -- the site plan is on the other on riented with 4 street. the central subway stop will be across clem tina towards the bottom on the plan. this next slide, represents the ground floor plan of the project which shows the arrangement of uses including the hotel lobby which is in the

bottom right hand corner with it's entrances off both 4th street which is to the right on the plan as well as to clem tina on the bottom side of the plan and also indicates the commercial space which wraps around the lobby and also has entrances fronting on both 4th street and clem tina. the main emphasis here is to maximize the activation of the pedestrian experience. that's been our intent with the design. the publically accessible open space shown on the left-hand corner of the plan is provided on the form of a sunny courtyard that is lushly land escaped and available for public use. services are going to be delivered in the bottom left-hand corner along clem

tina and dining is available on forth street frontage. the pedestrian level view shows a high degree of entrance transparency which we are seeking along 4th street promenade. there is a large population of seniors who live nearby and adjacent to our sight and so this hotel use is

a 24 hour seven day use which is going to enhance greatly the security of this neighborhood. one of the concerns that the neighbors brought to our attention and we have agreed to accommodate is at the corner of our hotel, right where 4th and clem tina come together for the mobility challenge seniors they have requested we add a low planter so that as pedestrians are coming down clem tina, as they round that corner, this planter will act as a buffer and prevent collision. it's just one example of many where we are able to accommodate they are concerns. we feature in

design as the district working closely with planning staff. we feel the contemporary design is going to be a very comfortable fit in the yerba buena area. so i think in the interest of brevity i will invite your comments and questions. thank you. >> okay. opening it up for public comment. since we have a large number of public comment speakers, we are going to as i ll