preservation staff. >> yeah. preservation. >> a couple other things, a height increase is proposed to be only 2 feet net and what has been reported as 25-35 foot separation between the neighbors properties and the house itself again. it's not bringing them any closer, it's only putting an additional partial floor on the top of it. on top of the existing. it's not changing the separation. and i generally don't see anything extra ordinary or unusual, in fact the most impacted was one of the people who spoke in support of the project who would probably have the most impact even that impact they don't feel significant enough to take the

dr. their views are not protected. i know there could be a possible instance where this addition might for a certain period change the sun coming in for one of the dr's request or's home. i think it's a very well designed home. this is very appropriate where it is and it's been pointed out when it was built in '51 the builder was sensitive and kept it as a lower profile and this does not add anything significant to the height of it and actually protects all the neighbors and i also think it's very important when an addition is made it matches to the rest of the house and it's done. they are not putting something on it that looks like it comes out of 2013. it should look like it comes out of 1951, which it

does. i don't see a reason to take dr on this. commissioner moore? >> when there are 5 dr's i assume this commission takes notice because there is something not in sync with the neighbors. but we use the power of discretion with discretion exceptionally extra ordinary . when i look by at the department i have to conclude the project operates within the prevailing guidelines with the interpretation of a non-compliant rear yard which was built for compliance which exist for rules now. and furthermore we have many

additions to buildings where since we could not deny that any owner cannot buy a property with restrictions for not being able to alter it, that is impossible in today's world that we have to accept where addition are appropriate and not appropriate. one of the things we mostly care about is indeed the view to the public side of the property and this is a very complicated one given the majority of the facade stretches over the length of the property which makes it very difficult to find and appropriate place for addition. so putting the addition actually pulled back from the driver way which by itself does not have much expression at all, i believe that we are adding a property aspect if we take the fact that an addition is indeed permitted. the property is not asking for variances and all we need to

look at the alteration are made appropriately and take care of did. i don't think we can call it an historic resource in a manner that makes it better and well maintained and proper buildings. i think architecturally the property moves forward in the 21st century and emphasizes the strength of the home. we didn't buy the house and let it be what it is. i simply say that i do not see any ability to take the dr and i make a motion to prove. >> second. >> i agree with both my previous commissioners. on the

dr requestors and all the comments of not receiving plans, it reminds me of projects that my firm has submitted to the city, architectural projects and indeed there is a long period of time in which you are dealing with environmental review and in this case, because it was a question raised about it's historic significance that process took another path. we've gone down that path with the department. their intake meetings, there are other meetings preapp meetings, a host of things n a lot of those instances i think all of the neighbors may feel that there is something going on and progress is being made, in fact nothing is going on in terms of actual design. there may be preliminary designs submit but those are all

subject to review at times but i think it's not -- i don't know how to put this. it's not a correct move to supply plans that may get substantially changed within the department and because of departmental suggestions and recommendation. i can't a test at test to the time of this, but this kind of thing takes a year or two years or even more. we were stie mead in 2012 that we not move forward on a project because of some internal pending potential legislation that the department was considering taking to the board of supervisors to change some provisions for review. i can't talk about the project because -- i'm a commissioner and it's something that got

submitted. so i'm not supposed to reveal the address. but in any case, so we held off with the developer for over 6 months and at that point it was what's going on and they said, well, nothing is moving ahead so you should now submit it. submitting it subjects you to environmental review and not just the intake review, not just the department considering it, this was an issue where there was going to be an environmental review which could have started 6 months earlier except for recommendation by that department that we do not go that route and i'm sure that neighbors if interested in what we were doing were saying what's happened with that and all of a sudden it starts to backup. that's from personal experience and also in terms of materials presented, i know

each side is trying to get their point across, photographs like this or like this art taken from different vantage points. it depends on how far away you are. in addition it's going to look this tall and this tall and it's not going to look exactly. we have to be careful how we look at those presentations and use our judgments about how accurate they are. other than supporting my other commissioners, that's all i have for the moment. >> i know there is a motion on the floor but i have a question for the interest of this commission, i would like to ask mr. william to explain the dr about the green rule. ask him to explain what is behind that

finding? >> commissioner moore, steve williams again. the dr came on file before i came to the board. i believe it's related to non-native species. would it be grass put in it or other plants put in it that weren't native to the area. but i don't know for sure. >> thank you. >> call the question, please. >> commissioners on that motion to not take dr, borden, sugaya, wu, that motion passes unanimously 7-0.

item 17. request for discretionary review. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes. i have to ask the commission for recusal. my company actually offered a report on the historic significance of this building and therefore the owner of the property is our client, was our client. >> commissioner moore? request from commissioner sugaya to be recused. >> on the motion of commissioner sugaya's recusal. borden, wu, aye, fong aye, that motion passes 6-0 with commissioner antonini absent.

>> good afternoon commissioners i'm lindsey on the department staff. since it's bereaved abbreviated on the dr case. the project on bruce street includes lateral additions to this 2 story single family house. it would enlarge the second floor to the south above the existing 1 story garage and the rear horizontal position is proposed behind the garage. it creates a new basement level and facade alteration to include new windows. >> the l shaped circa 1948 house. the project underwent a

historic resource evaluation as part of the it's environmental review and the building was determined to be a historic resource. the proposed alteration were also received and found to not cause a significant adverse impact to the historic resource and comply with the secretary standards for a historic resource. the project was ultimately determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review. the planning department has received over 50 letters of support for the project with neighbors of the several block radius of the product. in response to the neighborhood notification, a request for discretionary review is submitted by walter haz, directly adjacent to the south and uphill of the subject property. concerns raised in

the d r request include the following. the light aspects and the projects non-compliance with the secretary of the interior standards for the rehabilitation of the historic resource and the neighborhood guidelines. the property was reviewed and noted the following. although it does not protect the property line windows, a setback to the dr's requestors property line. the horizontal additions are no taller than existing building 2 story component thereby insuring the property's roof. the interior standards for the rehabilitation of historic resources and was found through

the sequel process to comply with those standards. finally the project is consistent with the residential design guidelines and does not contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. the department recommendation the commission does not take the dr. >> if you are here for the 4th street item which is the next item, it's probably going to be a few more minutes if you want to relax outside it might be easier for yourselves. >> the first d r request or. one single dr request or >> thank you, i represent the dr requestors, they reside at

33 sprus street. if i can have the overhead. their holding it here. the proposed project is here. unfortunately like all too many discretionary review matters it was taken by several tones. i will say that anyone that knows wally wouldn't recognize the person described as being a person that is mean spirited. he has been able to reach a compromise but not able to achieve that yet. the first issue is light and air. the proposed project would have a tremendous negative impact to the kitchen. the project sponsor seems to mock that concern because there is a window box outside the kitchen windows and there is plants going in them. obviously having a wall 3 feet away from your

kitchen windows is different from having your plant outside of your kitchen windows that allow air in. the second issue is the historical nature. they both found that 1 sprus is important resource on two separate basis. first are the was by a significant san franciscan who was on board of community development. the second issue was apologize to commissioner antonini, this is an important example of a moderate structure. your staff

said it concurred with page and i put some quotes here from what your staff said. it concurs with what page and turn bowl, that it's in the example of modern style executed by well-known and accomplished firm and integrity as what we have shown you that this project was featured in architectural record in 1951 and home and garden and your staff also recognized importantly that the character defining features of the property, it list the one and 2 story massing from north to south. let me show you the photos of the property submitted by the sponsor. this is in existing condition. this is a character defining feature

according to your own staff. the proposed project completely eliminates that character defining feature by squaring it off that your own staff told you it was a character defining feature of admitted historic property. it allows to expand it while maintaining light to the kitchen and preserving the character to the feature. shift the masa way from the street back to the west. this would take the masa way from the per spective from a passerby. it would we move the wall in front of the kitchen and would allow the project sponsor to capture an additional square footage. this compromises a one side

reduction without regard to our project goals but it's asking our project sponsors not to change any square footage and they have also reached out to neighbors to make sure they are okay with that alternative. of course this proposal isn't ideal for the project sponsor. but it's also not ideal for the hausz and not ideal from a source perspective. it's not a compromise. it greatly ameliorates on a historic perspective. we asked commission to exercise the discretion and approve this. >> thank you. speakers in favor of the dr? >> i have a few cards here. go

ahead. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is walter hawes. let me start by saying that after reading the commissioners letters i'm glad i'm not going into politics. in all seriousness, i know the sponsor feels put out by this process so far and i understand that. if john new from the start that i and other neighbors believe what was considered an important resource when he was looking into big the property. in fact the first conversation we had, he said if we can't work out an agreement, we couldn't go forward and it wasn't worth the fight. when we weren't able to reach an agreement, he said he and his family would live in it for a while. i -- conveyed the

message and in fact i received the notice announcing the preapplication meeting a year later. i was surprised since i was the neighbor to be most impacted by this project. i only received a copy 2 weeks after he filed with the city. he didn't ask for input from me and any other neighbors at anytime he filed for this plan and adjusted his plans when asked by the ske. -- city. i know a lot has been said about my trying to obstruct john from going forward with the

expansion. if that was the case, i wouldn't ask people to serve as possible to see how broke or compromise so john could go forward with these plans. i know john has portrayed the compromised idea as being simplistic and not meaningful but the it wasn't my intent in case a proposal was in variance and needed. in conclusion no matter what the outcome, i hope soon so the parties both can live with so john can go forward with this project. thank you very much. that would be the best outcome. >> thank you. scott. lyell

pain, wexler, phillip, thomas, chip and michael. >> speakers in support of the dr are the first two speakers that you identified. the rest are against the dr. >> thank you. good afternoon. my ma'am -- name is lyell pain. my wife and i and my children live on jackson street. we along with the hausz, the 2 families that are mostly impacted that are related to the issues that you are hearing about today. my background is in the real estate development business. we are very much involving with housing and we understand the situation with the neighbors and are trying to resolve problems. unfortunately in this

particular case there hasn't been an opportunity to work closely with the owners of this property and that's very unfortunate. we feel it's important from an historic standpoint as well as the light and air issues that there again be a continued dialogue to try and resolve these issues. approximate hee 15 years ago, my wife and i decided we wanted to expand our home and we sat down with each one of the neighbors and actually the family at that time was the owner of no. 1 sprus and we sat down and presented to their homes that what we are planning to do and we met with the hausz family and they set we have problems with light and air issues as far as what you are proposing. we would like for you to think of the following and we went back to our architect and we were able to make a compromise that work for

both families. we would like to think this is something that can happen here as well. although we appreciate that the owners of no. 1 sprus have made some adjustments. we still have very deep concerns that the current plan is still falling short of meeting the goals and the homes. the pain family home and hawes family home. both in terms of the historic character of the house and in terms of lighting. we would like to see design alternatives which would minimally obstruct light into the home and alternative design to do less damage of the historic design to the existing house. the pain family is in support of the hawes family efforts to have this project reconfigured and we are hoping this neighborhood and others that are concerned about these issues will be able to have a dialogue with a country no. 1

sprus owner and resolve them. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is howard wexler. i have worked with mr. hawes for several years to see if we can resolve with developing this property without the negative and destroying it. to this end. i want to have a letter given to you by verner associated and other preservation architects because the issue really here is there is no disagreement between us an your staff as to the historic resources and one

of the key historic defining features is going from one story to 2 stories which is now being removed. the difference is that, in the kad exemption, your staff has found that those changes would fully comply with the secretary of standards and would therefore not have a significant impact. this report clearly if you look at the summary of it, the last paragraph on page 5, it says proposed project fails to comply with standard 2, 3, 5, 9, 10. the significant breach of standards and opinion is not only consistent with those standards and cause impact on the environmental structure and second floor over the garage, not only destroys the design

relationship and cleanse the forms including the garage but also the houses primary access from lights to the south. i know this is not the forum to challenge the categorical exemption. we are not asking to you do that here where your only -- has a conflict. what am i asking to you do because we have to do another form to over turn this to get another eir which is needed. it only gets involved in the other side when i think something isn't done appropriately. i would ask to you either prove the compromise being suggested or find someway to delay this so people can work so there won't be a drawn out fight and there can be a

compromise that they are trying to achieve and which may eliminate the ability to have anything on the second floor. >> thank you. excuse me commissioners. if i may interrupt for just a moment. those of you who are gathering around the entrance, it's causing a fire hazard and we need you to find a seat or move to the other side of the room, please. >>