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

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

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 z