The existing threestory, three unit wood frame building was constructed in 1878. The certificate of appropriateness is being requested to correct violations to the case management, specifically for work that was completed without the benefit of a parent for beyond the scope of previously approved permits. The entire scope of work is limited to areas at the rear of the property and are not visible from the public rightofway. The enforcement history related to the property was outlined in the case report and stuff conducted multiple site visits to document the work and to ensure the certificate of appropriateness wouldve just completed work and any additional proposed work. The following scopes of work will be legalized as part of their certificate of appropriateness and will abate the opening enforcement case. Remodel and expansion of the existing ground floor unit into unconditioned space, expansion of the existing second floor unit at the northwest corner of the rear, removal, reframing, and modification of the roof of an existing portion of the building located at the rear that was originally constructed between 1950 and the mid1990s based on research. Inkind, replacement of an existing guardrail at the rear, and alterations to windows, associated trim and siding at the rear. No work is proposed for the front of the building except the sixth carriage doors facing the street of the ground floor. The other will remain an operable door to access the ground floor unit. Staff finds a proposed work conditioned is recommended will be in conformance with the requirements of article ten, with the secretary of interior standards and will be completed in a manner that is compatible with the liberty hill landmark district. The preliminary recommendation is for approval with the following conditions which can be found on page three of the case report. Upon issuance of the architectural addendum, the sponsor shall submit a construction schedule to the Planning Department and upon issuance of the architectural addendum, the project sponsor shall contact the planning Staff Members to schedule monthly visits to monitor construction progress. Staff has received no Public Comment prior to or after the distribution packets. In conjunction with a certificate of appropriateness, the work at the rear also requires a very were ruled by the Zoning Administrator for the portion completed within the required rear yard. I am available for questions. The project sponsor is also here with a brief presentation. Great. Thank you. Would five minutes be sufficient yes, five is great. Thank you. Toby morris for the project sponsor. The 26 hill project involves utilization and renovation of the three unit italian style residential structure. It is located in a tributary in the article ten lets ignite designated landmark district. The consistency had standards for the rear yard variance. The scope of the work consists of these changes. The interior renovations and expansion of the lower unit, and unconditioned space under the existing second floor. And interior renovations of the unit itself. Taking the existing carriage door at the front and the remaining access to the rear yard and modifications to the rear with new windows, trims, citing, and notably the flattening of the two shed roofs in the rear existing area. On the interior of the walls, flooring has been removed as documented in the material, meeting standards of the planning code section 1005 f. Here is a photo sorry, that is the back one. A photo of the interior. Here is a photo okay. If no visible changes are proposed, it will remain. The only proposed changes to fix one of the carriage doors so it will provide access to the rear yard. The main alteration concerns the rear. And sodas taking priority. There will be two pop outs with roofs and the rear exterior staircase to remain, an existing rear wall. Again, the demo drawings in your packet document the work and resulting in the rear elevation as proposed. This is a photo of the construction as it is done today subject to the suspension of the permit. You can see the flattened roof over the rear popout under a tarp and upper floors that were approved over under a separate permit that are not subject to this hearing. The findings where the property will continue to use a three unit structure. No changes to the existence of material and only minimal changes to Spatial Relationships of the rear. Standard two, the historic character of the property is being maintained, no changes to the facade and only minimal changes to the back. The rear will be finished and painted with windows, doors, and trim, and the floor does not apply. Standard five, all the Standard Features are being retained including the carriage doors that will remain at the rear of the renovations to the simple rear wall and are compatible with original and in keeping with San Francisco standards, a simple backyard facing wall. Standard six, seven, eight do not apply. Standard nine, no historic materials will be destroyed. The pop outs, which postdated the original victorian are proposed with flat roofs. No change in the future. Number ten does not apply. So now address the Zoning Administrator and the various findings, a one, the professional circumstances. The property has two pop outs that are existing and nonconforming. Enforcement is 134 and one section section 38 would not allow for densification. These pop outs decide the fact that we are moving the roofs and constructing flat roofs and it will have minimal bearing on the construction site. Next slide. Such a varied suggest the preservation of rights enjoyed by others in the vicinity and other nearby properties. They have larger encroaching rear yard structures. This will have no impact with Public Welfare or the general plan. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for that. Thank you. Good job. We will take Public Comment. Does any member of the public wish to comment on this item . Close Public Comment and bring it back to the commission. And he questions . I moved to approve with the conditions. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve this matter with conditions. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 7 0. Zoning administrator, what say you . Close a public hearing for the variance and approve the grant with the standard conditions. That will place us on item seven a and b. You would consider the certificate of appropriateness and the Zoning Administrator will consider the request for variance. Good afternoon, commissioners i am with the Planning Department staff. The application before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness and variance for the property at 3733, 373,520 th street was a contributor to the liberty hill landmark district designated under article ten of the planning code. The subject property is occupied by a two story two family residence joined in an east lake construction 1880 per the project includes construction of a garage within the front setback area and additional habitable space under the existing building. The garage will have a woodpaneled door and the new addition will be topped with a metal guard rail, a deck, and a new standard to maintain existing pattern of landscaped, front back areas along the subject block space. On the east facade, new wood and aluminum clad wood windows are proposed. The project was presented before the review committee on november 7th, 2018. The proposal has been revised to address the recommendations provided by the a. R. C. , which in summary, include minimization of the garage structure, to mimic the existing retaining wall, retention of the existing terrace setback pattern, retention or reconstruction of the existing historic concrete entry stairs and modification of the proposed deck guardrail to include vertical balusters. A copy of the meeting notes and stuff analysis is included in your packet. The project sponsor is also seeking a variance from the front setback requirements under section 132 of the planning code in addition to the letter of opposition you received this morning, the department has received one letter of support for the project from the neighbor who asserts the proposal maintains the historic integrity of the property. I have a copy of this letter for your records. Given the unique topography of the subject block in the subject parcel, the existing pattern of front setback garages, in the project sponsors response to the comments of the a. R. C. , staff is determine the proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article ten of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. Based on the analysis found in the case report, staff recommends approval with the following conditions. First, that prior to approval of the building permit, the project sponsor shall provide final material samples of the pigmented smooth cement plaster garage cladding and the metal guardrail to Department Staff or review and approval. Second, that prior to approval of the building permit, the project sponsor shall provide material specifications and product cut sheets for any proposed windows and doors to Department Staff for review and approval, and third, that prior to approval of the building permit, the project sponsor shall provide detailed drawings and or project specifications for the proposed entry gate to Department Staff for review and approval. A fourth condition has been formulated in response to Public Inquiry about the proposed curb cuts since the packets were published. It will be included in an amended draft motion. This condition requires that prior to the approval of the building permits, the project sponsor shall continue to work with Department Staff on the location and details of the proposed curb cut and garage door. This concludes my presentation. I have copies of working plans and elevations that were prepared by the project sponsor in response to public opposition for your reference and those were just distributed to you. The sponsor is also in attendance and will make a short presentation. Im happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you. Would five minutes be sufficient yes. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for hearing our case. I think that monica brought you up to date on this relevant point. I wanted to also point out that my clients are here with one of their two boys, they approached me two years ago about constructing a garage for them, which is very much in need for their growing family, and it does happen to be the neighborhood precedent. You can see here their house is the subject property and the neighborhood pattern is predominantly garages. We did look initially at the idea of having the garage said further back from the street, but it was not feasible to do that, both in terms of the difficulty of construction and engineering, so we decided to pull it out to the street. As monica described, we made quite a few changes in order to satisfy the Architectural Review Committee in november of last year. This is just a site mac a site map of the block that shows and purple the houses that have garages, so it is very clearly the neighborhood pattern. Here is my favorite photo that shows the reality of living in a house where you have to climb up both a set of stairs to get to your front door and another set of stairs to get up to the unit when there is no garage. The things that typically live in a garage tend to get destroyed put in this stairs. I have some concerns, but that is also a bit of a code violation in terms of egress. My clients are very much eager for the garage and we have made a lot of compromises to our original plan to get to the point where we think it satisfies both that there needs, as well as that of the neighborhood. I also want to point out that the proposed garage does have some living space behind it, which they very much want to use for their own purposes, and there was a point where we considered converting that space into an accessory dwelling units because my clients very much wanted to try to provide additional housing if that worked out. Unfortunately, it was a bit of a dead end because it requires that we had to get an exposure variance and that seems like an uphill battle that couldnt easily be attained. Most recently, this past friday, we did hear from someone in the neighborhood that did have concerns about the impact of our project on on Street Parking. This is something that we took very seriously. My clients understand that on Street Parking is a challenge in the neighborhood, and so we went back to the drawing board and looked at options as to how we might be able to make some further design revisions to accommodate that. You can see here in the site plan, this is what exists currently, and this is what we have been approved for. With the curb cut centred on the garage door, pretty much falling equally between two street trees that have been there for a long time. When we looked at various options, we figured out we could make some internal changes in the garage and slide both the garage door and the curb cut further to the west and we could open up what would be a 12foot long space, which is modest in size, but it could accommodate a small car and would be better than having the curb cut be directly between the two street trees, and elevation, this is what we are approved for, and you can see the garage door as it aligns, and then with the revised plan, quickly. With the revised plan, use we slid the garage door over and have created a 12foot space. One thing that we are up against is a street tree that exists on the west, directly to the west side of the property. Therefore we couldnt move the curb cut and the garage door any further to get more than a 12 foot space. That might be a reasonable compromise to consider. Thank you. Thank you. We will go ahead and take Public Comment. Would any member of the public wish to comment on this item . Heidi klein. My apologies. Okay. Hello. I am a 25 year resident who lives in the neighborhood. I live in Affordable Housing and i use on Street Parking. I cant believe planning is actually recommending approval of a new garage in the mission, and one of the densest neighborhood, and right next to dolores park. In total contradiction with the mayors and citywide programs to make our streets safer. Vision zero transit first. The new garage is right up on the sidewalk so the curb comes out right in front of thousands of people that are going to dolores park. Some of the distracted people with their children pushing a stroller, et cetera, going to the park doesnt see the car parking and we know what happens this happens to me every day when i walk up the street. Planning has four policy documents on garages and on Street Parking. One, the Mission Street scape for the design plan that this was especially street that was earmarked to add on Street Parking and not removing it like is being proposed. The project doesnt comply with the other three. Guidelines to adding garages, residential goes assigned guidelines in the code itself. And the department own Residential Design Team is not supportive of new garages for homes without them because it replaces a public space with a private one and decreases pedestrian safety. Yet despite all this, here we are. Were mitigating impact but using the same design as other buildings on the block. Garage on one side and stairs on the other like the last one. Then only one on Street Parking space is being removed instead of two. And you can co mingle with one of the existing neighbors, plus the owner is unwilling to give up their favorite street tree. Instead, they want their two car garage, exercise, media rooms, wine storage and control of all other 25 feet of street frontage so no one else can park. The proverbial, i want to have my cake and eat it too. The 12foot on Street Parking space is just a ruse. As m. T. A. It will read curb anything less than 14. An important overlook issue here is privatization of a public resource. It is an important resource for people in Affordable Housing, as well as daytime workers in this racially and economically diverse neighborhood. Its removal is not discussing anywhere, not on the plans, the public mood or staff report. This is a systemic practice that needs to be corrected to continue San Franciscos future as an economic place to live and work. Please take a giant step forward towards correcting this inequality by requiring the inclusion of the removal of on Street Parking in your reviews, public notices, and showing it on the plans for all future projects. I urge you to deny this project as an inconvenient process with the established street pardons on the block as well as at least six city policy programs. And they clearly have received a variance ten years ago for the rear yard, so not only have they your time is up. Thank you. Any other members of the public . Closed Public Comment and bring it back to the commission. Commissioner pearlman . Thank you. I was on the a. R. C. And saw this project when it came through before. I was someone who made the comment about the front railing being vertical instead of horizontal. I look at the drawings. It is still horizontal despite what staff has said. I just want to get some clarity if that railing will be vertically oriented. Thank you. Yes, it will. You did not update the their elevation to show that. I wanted to be sure that it was honored. I agree. We have been through a lot of iterations. I apologize. For sure, that can be a condition of approval, absolutely. Okay. That is it. Do we have a motion . I move we approved with conditions. Including yes. Including the conditions to have the staff asking to review the details as part of the commission. We dont have to add it. It will be amended in the draft motion. Thank you. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matt