is 1449 square feet with a rear yard. if we move to the had cottage of 22 percent. 3743, 20th street, [inaudible] 3737, 20th 1800 square feet floor plate and 18 percent yard. this is the proposed project and this is a a red outline of our section superimprosed on the west neighbor. you can see that our project is substantially the same and slightly smaller. this is our section superimposed on 111 liberty street. as you can see also similar project, less excavation and slightly smaller addition. 151 liberty street, again a similar project, ours is smaller. i have the rest of

the drawings here if you have qugzs >> thank you. we are not ready yet-are you with the project sponsor. sorry, keep going. >> ilean dick [inaudible] counselor for the project sponsor. i want to end the presentation with just what i preserved as the important take away. number 1 rfx the project sponsor heard you loud and clear from the january meeting made as you see through shanes presentation. direct and responsive comment [inaudible] got a more thorough presentation and unanimously approved the revision thmpt revisions are respaunssive to the issues raised by the neighbors at the jan [inaudible] and since. it isn't often a project sponsors are as responsive in movering forward and bringing a project before you that complywise the

appropriate standards and meets the applicable standards [inaudible] based on the revision that were made, the arc is very ver involved review of this and the extent and nature of the revisions made after your jan hearing i urge you very much to approve the coa and move this forward. thank you very much >> thank you. it is the ofend the presentation? commissioners have question before we go to public comment? commissioner proman? no. commissioner hilands >> gression mr. [inaudible] can you explain for the other commissioners benefit and the public the zoning issues around this project and the extent of

the zoning and zoning variance? >> the project will require a rear yard variance. basically the way the code is now, it allows for a mass that is similar to what they have in the rear yard, but they have to have a 5 foot set back from the 2 side property lines since the sponsor wants to shift that mass for the rear yard basically against the blank wall they need a variance to address a rear yard requirement. i think there is a diagram. >> if we were to follow the planning code exactly, that smaller valium furktest into the rear yard would shift over 5 feet away from the blank wall

and towards the opening between the cottage and house at the front of the east neighbor. is that clear? it was our assumption by sliding against a blank wall we provide more light and air and exposure for our neighboring property to the east and more connections with a open space by doing this. thought it would be a good thing for everybody. >> thank you. any other questions >> open for public comment. anyone wish to speak on the item? we do have speaker cards. first speaker is doctor lisa fromeer and you have 3 minute. there will be a warning bell when you have 30 seconds left. >> good afternoon

commissioners. i'm doctor lisa fromeer. i'm president of inliberty hill association. speaking today as a resident of the land mark district and i am opposed to this proposed expansion of 375153, 20 street. the liberty hill association board-we have taken a position of neutrality on the proposed expansion. we only comment on facades at the time we wrote a letter and no one was aware the facade would change with the addition of the garage, but never the less we can't comment on anything happening to the back of the property. as a individual i can. it strikes

me that mr. beck bane and the ark feck claim to respect the structure of the old house and state in the plan the structures historic contribution is authentic evidence of a previous way of building not as a innate design and detailing. the original esthetic is understating [inaudible] guiding principles for the new elements. unless you have old photographs of this house it is rather prempative to say it had no detailing. a lot of houses lost their ornamental elements and previous ways of building are not extinct. they speak to interesting lines and forms and ornament and that was used for even the less costly homes of that period. what they called understated and utilitarian

meant detail to make the older houses more affordsable. the esnss essence is to [inaudible] and carry forward. isn't that why we have museums? preservation can include restoration. i fail to understand why the commission here continue tooz approve these modern boxes [inaudible] of victorian older architectural style. it is destroying our neighborhood. it doesn't matter that you keep the old facade, people live inside the house and the huge modern boxes attach today the back of a facade will be the visional landscape neighbors dont want to look at. evethen scale of the expansion is rather offensive. it is all most a case of just because you can do it you shouldn't do t.

why build a monster and [inaudible] >> thank you. the next speaker is lindsey cufavor. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is lindsey cofaurfb and i'm a founder of the liberty district. i attended to jan 21 meeting where you requested they scaled down the size of the 3 story concrete block expansion to the rear of the victorian house. the minor adjustment that mr. beck bane made for example reducing the big box addition by 1 foot 2 inches in height and the pop out set back by 2 foot 3 incherize a insult and continue to show a lack of respect for the neighbors of this property.

however your architects revie seems to approved them. he keeps the size of the house at 71 thousand square feet which is larger than everything on the block. the historic preservation is the only city forum we citizens have availability to protect neighborhood such as ours from developers. your commission should be championing is neighborhood that wants to preserve the chairkt. if meck banes expansion is allowed it sets a horrible [inaudible] it negates a perpsh of a community working for 5 years to attain historic designation with the purpose of saving the character of the neighborhood. without a preservation committee our historic charming naird will morph into a city like any other in the u.s. filled with

high rise condos and monster houses rchlt i hope you will reconsider your earlier aprovel. thank you for your time. >> thank you. henry huette >> i own the house to the west at 3755, 20th street. some accommodation have been made and we thank mr. meck bane for doing that movaling outd the pop out back 2 feet so it is flush with the house, however we remain very concerned bet the size and scope of the praunlect and believe a smaller project would fit the neighborhood better >> daniel conrad >> i'm in 3747, which is the

adjacent house to the east. just wanted to state our concerns about the project. the first one is the excavation 2 stories down and the potential impact on the foundation of the house and water run off and drainage and general concerns we have about what impact that may have. also the level of disruption that amount of excavation would cause. the second concern is about the extension to the back and this going up 3 stories back into had yard. the concern there is because there are 2 stucktures on our property. there is the window of available light between them so as i walk out the back door and see blewen rr sky on the left and the right and because

there is a house at the back the proposed addition into the back will cover that blue sky to the right kw block the sun, will restrict our ability to grow in the garden. that is the-a unique thing about having a orientation on the front and back of the property. the final concern is just about the general scope of the project. i have a 9 month old son who is cared for at home and we are scared about health concerns and stuff and all the additional that will happen. down and up next door: thank you >> thank you. christian rizner >> i don't live in the district, i live in the mission district and very concerned

about the precedent and the way this is done, but it isn't only that because the historic district is a benefit to aerfbds in the city. i feel strongly about this and not only this project, but others. and potentially others. i sent a little for consideration i believe it wasn't mentioned specifically that is a copy ofy mail to me and assume all the supervisors have it, commissioner have it. i ask you to read it. the issue here really seems is regards to fundamental. the purpose of preservation-exceptions or how to deal with the need to maintain or expand. had it problem here is there is a great over reach. we are tripling the size. this is is

horrible precedent. the actual square footage is triple what is there. secondly, the existing is zoned for 2 units and the existing lower unit is above ground. the new structure will gobble all of that and place that second unit because we must have a second unit. that will be below ground. entirely. that is not historical. it can't be justified that way. it will be dead impact and it will be repeated. the impact of precedent was shown in the developers presentationism we saw other examples and this and that is happened. we are dealing with a matter before the commission. the case is not made. the case is not made the size of it. i mention said

some of it. it is harmer the neighborhoods provty as the previous speaker mentioned t. is onef of the oldest buildsings and not to be [inaudible] a as a cottage and not referred to in the written material supplied fwhie developer. the gabled roof design, we have a large block coming up against and superseding most thof roof. there is a [inaudible] that goes above, but for the most part you are not seeing the gabled roof. what you are seeing is the railing which is a fence around the top of the buildsing. this is change thg character, it is changing it from the front and every house in the front and looking across the street and changing it from the view of others situated in the back and where people spend much of their time. >> thank you very much. your time is up.

>> [inaudible] >> thank you very much. ing-rid egers >> my name is ingred egers and live in the cottage next to the development. my cottage is one of the oldsest on the block. it was built in 1867 and it is still more or less in that shape right there. i have a map here >> could you put this-there is something on the overhead. go ahead >> my cottage shows the red arrow and that is from 1874. you can also see there was no

front house yet, however the house that is discussed here was aurd there. i lived there for 17 years. i'm 70 years old and i'm a writer and take care of my grand daughter who is 2 years old 2 day as week and do a little bit of [inaudible] to make ends meet. this life of mine will be gone once this major coninstruction starts next door. i have to say i'm not gaens renovation. i think the house needs to be renovated. there should be a garage and old and new combined, but inway it is done here is still tripling the size of the foot print and basically digging 25 feet into the ground. i think that is not what should happen. i grew up in a 500 year old farm in germany where lots of

renovation was done always thinking about the old and new and how it fits together. this historic context and history was always prevailing. you always want to preserve the old somehow with adding the new. i wish that this would be done here in this case too, but i don't see it. there are 2 huge boxes in the back especially the one that i will have to look at and it will stair back at me with all the windows and all the glass doors. i'm back there and i is to face that and then there is the lower unit and the garden where a big pit will be diged out. it is gone, the pit, but it isn't gone. it is gracefully terraced which means there is still more dirt that will go out. you have a way to say no to all this and i

beg you to say no to these plans >> thank you. is there anyone else in the public who wishes to speak? seeing no one we'll close public comment and bring it back to had commission. do we have comments, questions a motion? >> yeah. commissioner proman. >> this is a real challenge. i spent a bounch time-i'm on the arc solooked ace at this and spoke with mr. meck bane and the architect and we have looked in this district and others where we have approved virtually the same thing. i did go out and look and think mr. risers letter talked about the garage was incompatible and

i see that at least 50 percent of the buildings have garages. the complaints about the square footage i find very interesting because a monster home is a monster home if it lords over the other houses. if we were entertaining adding a floor and would say this stands out and it would be considered monster to the other homes, but this isn't the case here. square footage isn't mentioned in the code, massing is mentioned the code. when you look at the massing of the building relative to neighboring build squgz the architect showed a number of diagrams about that, in particularly the house to the west this is actually smaller than the house >> student the to the west because it steps down and doesn't continue with the same form to the rear of the

property. in essence it is actually less mass. things that are below grade and cannot be seen from the street there is no legislation in the code, the planning code or in the legislation about the district that talks about things that are unseen because they are unseen. to just harp on the fact that this has so much square footage to me is a meaning lass argument relative to whether this neets the scale and the massing of the-as a contributor to a district. i go around and around. i agree that you may not like the style of the architecture and i feel sorry for the woman who is in the back, but the addition is

being moved away so it is 10 feet away. it isn't right aup against the wall, it isn't 5 feet away cl is required by code. i think there is a lot of issues on this and think there is a lot of hi purbbly about how this will efecktd the whole city somehow. it is in the back, i drive by and really cannot-i will not be able to see it. my perception of liberty is no different and yes it is different r different for those in the back yard who see this, but we live in a city and the lots are very small and i think if someone is following the rules and responding to the comment we made from jan, i can support this project without a problem. i think it is something that-i go around and

around. the only thing i think is of issue is the style of the addition because if this had a gabled roof, and continued the gabled roof of the buildsing we wouldn't have the amount of the conversation. the style oaf the building is more boxy is of 2015 opposed to when the house was built. there was different concepts of how we design and how things were built. i'm very sportive of the project and think they have done a good job thmpt other question i have is the thing about developers that the conversation comes up all the time about whether a person bys a house to sell it or whether they buy a house and new to the the neighborhood so therefore they a considered a outsideer and they are stamped with this red d for developer.

i don't know mr. meck banes intentions maybe some of you know that. my understanding from what mr. meck bane is he plans to inhabit the house and if he does or doesn't that is not a part of the conversation about how we develop buildings in san francisco. our charge to look at the historic character and does it meet the sector of standard and requirements of the district and in my opinion it does those things >> commissioner hawse >> thank you. i concur on all points with commissioner promoan. i don't see a size isue. my only issue is [inaudible] i don't think our

pervee goes into determining existing planning code >> commissioner johns >> and a slightly different reaction to this and into the the discussion that has gone on-as you know, it is always important to me that the commission to the greatest extent possible be predictable and that it be consistent. i have always felt uncomfortable when there are special little things that get applied to a project that don't seem to have been applied to other projects in the past. i have never liked redesigning on the fly. here what i appreciate and this came out clearly in the arctics

presentation is this is consistants with what we have approved in the past. i think it is very important for us to establish rules and follow them and to allow our staff to predict what our rulings are likely to be. i think that is important for everyone in the city both those proposing projects and for those opposing project because i think it makes a much more focused presentations and decisions. that is what we have done the prior approvals to which commissioner pearlman referred and which were referred to in the presentation are very important to me. i concur with

what commissioner perman said, i don't find it to be offensive that the project is the size it is particularly because most of the projects will be hidden from public view >> commissioner hiland >> i concur can all 3 commissioners before me. the only thing i want to point out for the commission consideration is that this applicant has really reached out to everyone that they need today reach out to and the comment or question i had for mr. sucray is they can build a much bigger house than what they are proposing based on the current zoning and they have taken it down and broken down the mass and scale that is appropriate. this house is the same scale as the west neighbor. i would like tacu-mind the project applicant

because they are going one step further and having to go through a zoning variance in order to do something that better for their property and boat both adjacent properties. i too support this project >> thank you. commissioner [inaudible] >> i think i want to thank the architect and the owner for coming back and taking the time to go to the architectural review committee and i'm pleased with what you have done and looking this over and i would-i concaner with your recommendations which i studied. my main issue before which is addressed is the terrace thing. the size i think the architect, the plan is quite beautiful. there is

more-to me what you have done is create more harmony. i will vote to support >> commissioner hiland >> i have a question for mr. sucray on the size of the window and what your thoughts or staffs thoughts are. >> the department think the window is a little larger than it should be. we think we prefer the smaller option that is provided and shown minimal expansion so it is very clear the new window is different than the existing ones and it reduced in size compared to the larger scale windows. we'll defer to the commission recommendation. in the conversation with the arc they

were not opposed to the wrindo in support tof o thf project as proposed by the sponsor >> i have a preference and i may not have expressed it specifically in the arc but i prefer the larger window. i think the contemporary proportion of it disting wishes it away from the original build{the shortened window looks proportioninately out of scale. >> commissioner proman >> i want to say one thing about there were many comment about the crurgz building have a impact. it isn't in the purview of this commission but buildings get built everywhere and they make noise and dust and dirt and if you are living next to one that is a issue but it isn't the puby of the commission nor is it something you can legislate because