original railing and due to the modern finish and the trash bins will be located in the side wall of the stair so that it does not have a prominent presence when viewed from the street, the door will be wood to match the material of the doors on the property, however it will be designed on a simple manner. for the regarding the proposed sun room, the sun room is a later edition which has no architectural significance and the alterations will improve the compatibility of the feature with the character of the building and the work will replace aluminum doors, with the light and doors, and the framing will be compatible with the building without mimicking the original building, the pyramid skylights will be replaced with a lantern shaped skylights that relates better to the facade beyond it.

as i spoke of before, the renovation of the sun room does trigger the need for a fire proofing para pit wall along the property line and we plan to work with dbi to minimize the height of that as much as possible. if you have any questions, i am available and the project sponsors are here to give you a brief presentation. >> thank you. >> this is my husband and co-restorer and over here we have lito who is our contractor. and just very briefly we wanted to give you an update on where

we are at. this is the house in 2010 and, we have completely restored the woodwork and put on a new roof. >> this small, shaded highlighted part shows the pyramids that we were talking about that is with the building that we wanted to replace.

the neighbor loves the idea and wrote us an e-mail saying, yes, please do it. >> let's see. and then, this is another shot of the house as it is currently. this is the house as it is currently. and i think that is all that i wanted to show you. oh, okay, so there is exterior easement on the house by san francisco architectural heritage and so they have a say as to whatever happens to the outside of the house so we contacted them about a year ago. and their response was the retaining wall is not part of the historic feature, that is in their mandate and so they have no reason to be against it. and that e-mail i believe is included in your materials. >> it is not. >> it is not, okay? i can leave you a copy.

>> we made you a packet. >> okay. >> and then also, from there is a tenant in the lower unit and he is very prothe project as well, because this way, he will have a staircase and a trash bin rather than having to come around to the front of the house which is a kind of odd narrow passage way with a very low fence, it is only about this high. so if you follow over you are going to if the spikes don't get you the sidewalk will. and so this we are hoping is going to ease some of that so if you have any questions, let us know and thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> commissioners any questions, staff or sponsors? >> no? >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and any member of the public wish to speak on this item?

>> thank you. >> my name is jim warshall and i am here to some extent both from the perspective of san francisco victor an alee ans preservation committee and also from the neighborhood association and transportation and planning. this project has been a joy to witness, you know, what they have done. and everything about the quality the high degree of research, and excellence speaks to exactly what we have loved to see everybody doing. even here today, when presented with the minor alteration to the iron work, that you are opting for a very subtle handling speaks well to what we are always talking about of

good context and subtlety while having enough distinction so there can't be confusion. and so from every point of view, we really welcome everything that has been done so far to the historic portion of this building. and fully support the changes proposed. we agree that there is nothing about the addition that would be obtrusive in what they are proposing so it is really a pleasure to commend the excellent work of these talented and committed preservationists. >> any other member of the public wish to speak? >> good afternoon. >> my name is ell murray. >> and i am his neighbor. i live down the street and i have for a quarter of a century.

and i think that the work that they have done to this house is extraordinary and it looks wonderful and it has been a pleasure to see, someone have a great deal of concern for a piece of property. but i disagree with everything that everyone has said about the concrete wall. this home is 132 years old. that wall is 132 years old. would you cut down a tree if it was in good condition in 132 years old? i don't think so. especially if it was only for a trash can. now, you can talk to them about what they think, but as far as i am concerned, after living in this neighborhood for a long period of time, it would be a shame to change any of the facade of this structure as far as the other items that they wish to repair in the back of the house i am all for it. i think that that is a great idea. but to cut into this wall i think is a bad idea. i think that we should preserve things and that is what your

commission is about, preservation and this is your opportunity to preserve that retaining wall. okay. thank you very much. >> any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> seeing none, we will close the public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> commissioners? comments? >> i will say right off of the bat that i have been by the house a couple of times and they are doing a stunning job. and they are model stewarts of one of our finer buildings in san francisco. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i did want to comment on the last speaker. you know, a tree that is 130 years old we would trim. we are not living in the 19th century. and this seems like an extremely modest and slight alteration to a few feet of a wall that wraps around the whole property and it seems to me the handling of it is very

sensitive. and appropriate. so i strongly endorse this and i commend the owners for doing a spectacular job, thank you. >> commissioner highland? >> i would just like to thank the owners for taking advantage of the mills act and glad that you are able to get some financial incentive and more importantly thank you for taking such good care of the property. and i would support the project as well. >> commissioner johns? >> i so move that we adopt the staff's recommendation for approval with conditions. >> second. >> thank you, and before that one last comment, i will comment on the placing the gate in the retaining wall. it is all the way down at the end of the property at the edge, if it was in the middle it might be different. but we do this for garages quite often in very prominent

and very high preservation status buildings and i think that this is a minor intrusion in that wall and so i am in support of that. we have a motion and a second. do we have comments? >> if we could call the roll. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions, on that motion, commissioner highland? >> yes. >> johnck, yes. >> johns, yes. >> matsuda. ye. yes. >> wolfram. >> yes. >> hasz. >> yes. >> 7 to 0 and places on you item 9, 2014.0424 a. at 2319 webster street, request for a certificate of appropriateness. >> and good afternoon, commissioners before ally starts i wanted for take a moment to introduce you to ally, she is a planner on our

northwest quadrant team and she was an intern working on all things preservation for some time in our office and we were delighted when she applied for a permanent position with our office and we were able to hold on to her and her great expertise. ally is a graduate of uc santa cruz with a degree of art history and when she came back she had recently graduated from colombia university preservation program, and so with that, so i welcome here to the pac and that is it. >> good afternoon, department staff, the item before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal of 2319 web ter street, located in the landmark district, the two story single family residence was constructed by builder william

holace in 1848. in the italy style. >> including a garage at the basement level of the primary facade beneath the bay window and excavation of the addition, providing space for a garage and basement and additional bedroom and building in a notch at the first story beneath, and not visible from the public right-of-way, and removal of a door, and construction of a new stairwell and converting the roof of the single rear edition to a deck and replacing a window at the center of the rear bay with a custom built wood frame door and replacement of two non-historic windows in kind on the first story. and not visible from the public right-of-way. the garage design will retain the openness of the front yard and the existing straight run stairs.

the preposal will remove the curb and planters at the front of the residence, the proposed garage will be contemporary in its design and will not create a false sense of the historic development in the district. the addition of the below grade space will not be visible from the public right-of-way and not impact the character defining features, the mass scale and location of the infill edition is consistent with the building and additions found on contributing properties within the surrounding district. and to date, the department has received one letter of support for the proposal which was in the packets that you received. and the planning department staff, recommends approval with conditions of the proposed project, and it appears to meet the secretary of interior standards and staff supports the project with the following conditions, the project sponsor will use a smooth finish wall for the new retaining walls and planters with the driveway to maintain the public

right-of-way. and the project sponsor shall retain the base of the bay on the primary facade above the garage and install a wood door with a painted finish similar in tone to the surrounding wall finishes and lastly, the project sponsor shall complete a site visit with the department staff and occupancy in order to verify with the approved project description and conditions of approval. the project sponsor is present and prepared a brief presentation and available for questions and this concludes my presentation, thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, virginia manahaw with the architecture presenting the project for the clients. >> project was built in 1900,

and it is currently... sorry. it is currently an rh 2 residential home, two family residence, and it is in the historic district. and the current use is a single family and the proposed use will remain a single family residence. this is a subject property right here. and it is surrounded by other props of similar characteristics. and the scope of work that we propose to do is to infill. >> it is almost impossible to hear you, if you could maybe, get a little closer to the microphone. >> okay, i apologize. >> thank you so much. >> we are proposing to do an in-fill beneath an existing second story over hang at the south of the property that is not vicible from the street and we present to add a new garage door at the front of the building. and in keeping with similar, garage doors that have been added on the neighboring properties.

and we are proposing to reconstruct an existing stair that will lead to the basement of the rear of the property also on the south side of the building. >> this is the existing first floor where we have right now this blue area is the area that we are proposing to fill in on the south side of the facade in the rear of the property, it is about two feet deep. and you can also see it on the photo, that points out to this area here that it will be in-fill. of the front of the property, we are proposing to install a garage door, this is the existing elevation and we are proposing to he is ka vait and install a garage door. the garage door will be very similar to the garage doors

that have been installed to the south of the property, or adjacent neighbors here as well as this one here two doors down. the garage door will be wood panels, that will be painted to match the existing building, and it also is recessed from the front of the building, and we are keeping all of the existing trim moldings surrounding the garage as to disturb as minimal as possible and have a minimal impact on the facade itself. >> this drawing here shows the area of the back that has been infilled at the first floor level and there will also be a new stair leading to the he is ka vaited basement. and the proposed area of the roof of the first floor roof deck in the back with railings

that will be in keeping with the characteristic of the house. and there was a letter in support of the project by the neighbor adjacent to the property on the south side. this neighbor right here. we believe that the project is in keeping with the characteristic of the neighborhood. and with very minimum impact on the neighborhood itself. thank you. >> commissioners any questions for staff or for the sponsor? >> commissioner highland? >> i just have one question on the and it relates to one of the conditions, and the surface of the garage door itself, first of all, i think that the staff recommendations is to make it as flush as possible so that we don't see the lines, is that the... intent of it? >> so the garage door is panel

flush panels, that will be painted. >> okay, because the drawings make it look like there is more articulation in the joibts. >> it is a tongue and groove paneling system. >> so you have no objection to the condition that staff is putting on this then? >> no. i mean, we would definitely would work with the planning staff to make sure that the door complies with the requirements. >> i just was not quite clear of how it actually is going to look. >> we submitted the changes and we will be happy to. >> one drawing calls it a one by six, horizontal paint door and then it calls it one by five tongue and groove and then 9 inches and so i was not clear how those horizontal lines. >> if i may commissioner. i am going to have a suggested addition to the conditions as well. so maybe we will make and so that there is another submital later on and so maybe we will have a submital of the actual

garage door and we can add that as a condition of approval and then i will just say while i am on the subject. only because the base of the bay the rounded sections sometimes get taken off when these garages went in years ago, and completely messes with the balance of the building just that one little item i have seen it happen and it gets taken off and messes with the balance. what i would like to see is just a check-in, drawing sent over once you have a structural engineer, do the structural engineering for that opening so that we can confirm that it stays. >> okay. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i also have a comment on the garage door. it seemed like there was a conflict between the staff report said match the color of the concrete walls, i think. and then the architect said the color would be the color of the building. which seems more appropriate. so i just want to get clarity on the staff requirement.

for the color of the garage door. >> and if you could just grab the mic. >> pardon me. so we asked in the conditions that the garage door be painted in a finish similar to the tone of the surrounding finish and walls. so that is something that we can follow up on and make sure that. >> i am saying that there is a conflict between that and the architect said paint it the color of the house which seems more appropriate to me. >> which is the more common way to do it. >> it is more common, that is all. so i wanted to sort of clean that up to make sure that it is that way, that the architect said, that the color should be matching the house and not necessarily the walls of the retaining walls. >> yeah, i can update that thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners any other comments or questions at this time? >> okay, seeing none we will take the public comment on this item, and any member of the

public wish to speak on this item? >> seeing none, we will close the public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> i move to approve with the conditions as stated in the staff report with the one change. >> and then, actually the couple of changes, the one that president hasz mentioned and the one that i mentioned about the color. >> second. >> commissioners there is a unless there is anything further? >> no. okay. >> there is a motion and a second to approve with conditions as amended to require a second submital of plans, post final engineering and the garage door matching the color of the house. on that motion, commissioner highland? >> yes. >> johnck, yes, johns, yes, matsuda, yes. >> pearlman. >> yes. >> wolfram. >> yes. >> hasz. >> yes. >> so moved that passes 7-0. and places you on your final item, 2014.0425 a, 981 grove

street, request for certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners, ally kirby department staff, the item before you is a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed project at 981 grove street located in the alamo square landmark district. the proposal includes a number of exterior alterations including a vertical addition of a second story, and excavation in the rear yard, a horizontal addition, and regrading the existing driveway and excavation of the existing garage to reduce the slope. and reconstructing the garage, entry and playing with the wall above and restoring the base of the bay and reconfiguring the stair from the street level. the vertical addition will be set back, in the roof of the

addition will slope away to minimize vicebility. the mask scale and location of the new horizontal edition is compatible with the rear editions in the surrounding district. and the proposal will return the historic bay and base of the building to a can't closer to the historic design. the date that the department has received 1 inquiry regarding the project and although the contact did not express concerns for the proposal, the planning department staff, recommends approval with conditions, of the proposed project as it appears to meet the secretary of interior standards for rehab. they support the project with the following conditions, the project sponsor shall retain the eastern retaining wall along the driveway to preserve the character of the straight run stair at the upper portion of the stair and bring it in closer performance of the

standards and condition of the property. and the project sponsor shall complete a site visit with the department staff, prior to occupancy in order to verify the compliance with the description and the conditions of approval, and the sponsors present and has prepared a presentation and i am available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is tim crudo and i am the home owner at 981 grove and phoebe is we mo'o she is going to talk about the project and i want to thank you for your time and attention today and i want to thank the staff and they have been helpful in the last several months in giving us communication and guidance and direction and that is helpful. and i am a san francisco native and i was born and raised here.

i lived here almost all of my life, my great grandfather immigrated here in 1870, 20 years before my house was built. and i don't know whether because of that or for some other reason, i have always been a big fan of the victor an, i was a victor an history and literature major in college and one of the things that attracted me to this house in this neighborhood, 15 years ago, when i moved in, was the opportunity to be a custodian of history, being the given the character of the neighborhood and it is attractive and excited about this project and allowing me to continue that maybe for the next 150 years and i will not be around but hopefully the house will and the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood will be as well. i want to point out one thing and i don't think that you have it because it came in too late, we did receive an e-mail of support from a board member of the alamo square neighborhood association and we have forwarded that along to the

staff and hopefully that it find the way to you if that will be helpful. >> we have been working with our neighbors, and we have had a number of meetings and communications and i expect those to continue, and the issues there, i think, have primarily dealt with permitting, type of issues as opposed to the historical issues that are on the agenda for today, but i expect for those conversations will continue, and we look forward to resolving any issues that might remain with the neighbors on any of those issues. so, let me turn it over to miss lamb and she can tell you about the project. >> hi, there, thank you so much for this opportunity to address the commission, and we really started out this project wanting to improve the home, but mainly to also preserve the historic character of the home and mainly the front facade is kind of the main jewel of that particular house. and now, here is a existing

photo of the home, with a proposed version of the home side by side, and we are really proposing minimal impact to the actual facade of the house with the exception of the garage area and also regrading of the front driveway and the existing concrete stairs leading up to the main house. just want to note that the existing wood stair that goes to the front entry, will not be removed, it will be remaining the same and we will preserve that and i would like to point out that you know, we have worked closely with the staff to make sure that we are in full compliance and they had some great suggestion and we have also incorporated those within our design, and as you can see here, we had originally had a vertical addition in the front closer to where my finger is pointing here. and in which it was visible to the public, and we have since changed that to a slope roof

with a skylight so that it can be as minimal as possible, and pretty much not visible and the other items that we did incorporate was the front hanging of the front garage wall, and in setting it back. and the original and the house as it currently stands does have the garage in the front and we also thought that the suggestion was great to push that back, and to create the bay so that it can return closer to what it would have been originally. and here is kind of a quick image of what that looks like with the bay. now it was just a couple of clarifications for the commission. i would like to make sure. and the garage door had noted that it would be the same size, verses the existing. we are actually going to keep the same width but we are increasing the height of that door by four inches. and it is mainly because the proportion needed to kind of

look right. we are regrading the driveway so the front portion of the house right at the garage will be slightly higher, than it used to be. so we are pursuing adding about four inches to the garage to the new garage door height. the other items that i want to be sure the commission to know is that the first floor rear addition in the back of the house, it will be curved, if there was any digital copies of the drawing that showed it as a square, that is actually not the case it will be curved, i believe in your 11 x 17 packets they are curved. but the size of it remains the same. i like to focus the commission's attention to a specific issue that was in the conditions for approval. in terms