speaksers in the dr request or? you have 5 minutes. commissioners, my name is john with my wife mary. we are the owners of property on sprus street. first notice the dr requestors submitted information that is inaccurate. a vertical addition resulting in a 3 story home. the actual project under consideration in this application is a modern style home for a 2 story home.

the discretionary review -- by any measure the project is well within height limit and planning code. additionally it fully meets all requirement for residential guidelines. we have character and maintain light and air to adjacent properties. planning staff has reviewed property that make sure we are within the planning code and residential guidelines in anyway. there is nothing exceptional and extraordinary and this case should not be in front of the commission. this whole planning code issue by the request or is by light and air. simply not the case. the standards apply to every other project for cities in the project and met the needed proposed requirement.

>> using the overhead, the 3, north facing windows that sit on the property line the only ones adjacent to our addition. the request or hangs over the property and onto our property which covers for years blocking incoming light. the proposed project little or no impact for multiple reasons. our addition establishes a continuous setback rather than setting back our structure at the window location s. we have taken it on second floor to lighten on all sides. the difference between structures and easy access to air and for the windows in question. further the space in question has several other windows to provide more than adequate light. the standards apply for light and air everywhere else

have been exceeded. in the long history leading to our current proposal there have been many revisions and changes that we have made reducing the size of the proposed project. the original project application include a 3rd party addition. it's not a historical resource. it was in fact an a historical resource. to limit modification became the basis for that evaluation from that point forward. despite our disagreement with the facts we accepted the department's findings and moved forward with the development of a new design that has met the secretary and

interior standards. further reduction was accepted as we worked with staff to work with roughly for 12 months. in essence all the reduction of square footage is a reduction from an opposition historical report. we are a 2 story home in a neighborhood zone consistently throughout the neighborhood. the foot print of the 2 stories that remain is unreasonable. in sum tree modest addition proposed compromised with planning staff. there is nothing exceptionally extraordinary about this case. we have 60

letters of support. we respectfully act that you do not take discretionary review. i will be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. calling up speakers in favor of the project sponsor mary, tom, and phillip. >> i butchered all of those, sorry. president fong and commissioners. my name is phillip riser, i live across the street from the proposed project. i live at 2 sprus spreet. my wife and i are also the former owners of this street. i'm here on behalf my wife and family to express our full support. the proposed

project does not meet any requirements of the d r and should not be before you at all. it's respectful to the existing house and visible to the public area. as the former owner of this property, we spent 18 months developing plans for the house in working with the neighbors. in our case, we had proposed a 3rd story on the north far side of the house. despite our efforts, we were subject to the same replease be seated repeated obstructions by the neighbors even though it had little or no effect on them. they are protecting their own interest

regardless of legality or impact. this neighbor has spent the last four years strategically derailing any proposal for the renovation of this home. they did so also with the original owners and now they are trying to do it with the current owners. despite multiple opportunities to purchase the property, they 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 outr