>> thank you. this project illustrated what happens with a permit consultance ws with planning to misrepresent a 250 thousand dollars remoss of the historic building the permit scope includes adding large are windsos and extending the depth of 1600 like by 2.5 feet without historic resource evaluation report the w is visible from the street. i believe there are significant conditional lessons upon learned if planning mission accepts dr. preapplication meeting materialless show the xhafrj in depth from 35 feet to about 37 and a half feet. the open space with the building materials on the east side of the property the site of garage expansion. 311 materials did in the disclose 171 square feet

expansion and the proposed new rear garage wall. april posed new rear wall maintain 5 foot setback the green arrow from stefani peek's house. 1600 lake is historic resource and potential historic district. or block. many city documents acknowledge 1600 a history irk resource and the most significant xrment historic blovenlg confirming planning documentation is in the dr application. . this is a sum reof the permit, 250 thousand dollars larger kitchen and dining room windows, roar wall expansion visible from the street. the project is immediatest with little financial impact is the material mischaracterization. 250 thousand dollars building

permit is the first face of air remodel to complete the scope of the remodel the property owner victimed to submit a series of permits. a new permit should be submitted for the scope of work. new permit determine if hr is required. entire scope of work is if described to neighbors includes addition of a deck. large eleven windows and remodel requiring demo. the entire scope of w is on the next slide. this slide is upon an exterior depiction of the remodel where you see the new kitchen windows new dining xroom doors. and the deck visible from the street. you also can see that the

entrance to 17 -- 1600 lake street is in the on 17th upon avenue. that is the little white thing in the corner and the gate. so -- to say it is on 17th is wrong. and as the planning commission upon pointed out a variance would be required to be code compliant. planning department analysis mischaracterized the lake street project. the windows and the expansion were not in the review analysis. he were is the ceqa scope of work you see that planning department dr analysis is a subcest ceqa and the building permit scope of work. planning department 311 notice failed to disclose the 2-1/2 increase in depth and the 171

square foot expansion. the planning department required send a notice because of the of proposed expansion. 311 materials failed to include the exist pregnant proposed square footage from page 800. zero of the permit plans you see a subset of that page why was this not disclosed. february of 22 planning department plan check letter called out the environment at analysis or evaluation. 1600 lake street could not be completed the project sponsor failed to provide the information. how was planning department able to conclude the proposed windows are compliant when you don't have the materials? i believe them is why the windows are missing from the planning department dr analysis. thank you for the opportunity to

present. i nevermore seen plans it is additional work we were going to dom we have 3 children i w. why you have to use sfgovtv go to the over head. i work in know fran upon downtown where i have for 25 years it was interesting to be here for the beginning. my husband was a park steward we live instead precylinderiel for 19 years and bought 1600 lake, 2019. as our family house. 3 children dog was not cared for

and we spent time and money irrelevant reto the original state. the front poefrn was falling off. got a per notice replace that w in the garden and other things we are perplexed why hoe is here because he did show up in a premeeting and indicated support as did all of our neighbors. i'm going to turn it over to deborah who is representing us. hi. deck raholly. thank you for your time i'm perplexed as well boy the plans he showed are you. those as i hope you understand are not the plans. that have been submitted and approved by planning. i hope you can focus on the actual plans.

. we don't why mr. dratler is opposed to our project. he attended the preapplication meeting last year. told us that the project is nice and have you considered landmarking the palm trees. so. project has noted changed between the time that he received the preapplication meeting plans and the 311 notice plans. basically, the project consists of a small garage addition of 171 square feet and elements. and new windows. so -- in yellow you see the small garage expansion. into the side yard not the rear yard. and this will allow the family to park their honda civic along side their tiny 1967 minicooper

which is only car that can fit in the garage. . the garage and the new garage door not visible from public right of way because the garage is partial low below grade and behind the gate alcohol be replaced. garage will xanltd in a small area of the side yard. this aryell shows the open space will on site. that will remain. which have is out line in the red. the affordability of home could be learning are under the code the family's proposing a small addition. shown in the next drawing the project includes window replacement on the western elevation. you see that in yellow.

. the project has not impacted him or other neighborless. as shown on of the arial photo mr. drat ler's home is 80 feet away and cross the street from the project. project has min xhal considerable distance from the site he is just not impacted. we have support from many neighbors. and mr. dratler is the only neighbor who raised objections. . mr. dratler's request is incomplete, inaccurate and does the not meet standards required take dr. he made no effort to resolve his concerns with staff. or our team. refused to meet with us and does not except the offer to meet. the hearing could have been avoided had he reached out. not only does mr. dratler's dr

fail to identify exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, his application is incommolest. does in the bother to answer the 3 questions on page 1 of the application. instead he accuseds planning staff of. improper noticing and improper plan and preservation. >> thank you you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> member this is is your opportunity to address this matter. if are here in forward. if call nothing press star 3. no other members of public in the chamber we gallon to remote callers. press star 6 to unmute yourself. >> good afternoon will commissioners san francisco coalition. i would like to bring to your attention the issue here is in the about the vows or height,

and garden variety not in my backyard complaint this is following the process and compliance with the planning code. this it is highly unusual to propose enlarging windows on a historic resource without the certifications. and are without the preservation evaluating the appropriate knowledge of the window replace am. when one of our colleagues was replacing 5 [inaudible] steps in front of her house and preservation team had to spent tw to 3 monthses review the 5 steps. and you know the house was in a historic district. will it was not main corrector

to that historic district n. this case this house is a type ahistoric resoutherlies and it should have been studied much upon more rigorous low and any replacement of materials should have been considered more vigorous low. also i dhoong mr. dratler's upon points about it is scope of work this does in the look like a modest remodel this is much learning are than special we are concerned this could turn out to be [inaudible] situation i than this commission is in the a fan of. that is why the dr needs to be accepted. and reurge to you pay attention to what should be followd and what should be the process and. >> thank you. this is your time.

i live at 28, 18th's on the assignment block as the subbeject property and i have a full video of the house from the back of my house and i'm calling to support application. i think that they have done improved the house in appropriate and quality manner since they purchase today in 20s 19. description of the fact tfgs become dilapidated historical resource was accurate and their project is appropriate and would encourage plan to approve their request. thank you.

i'm a house owner i'm here to speak in support my neighbor who have faced difficulties. i known them for years the most honest competicaring individual i met. nksz ever[inaudible]. it is is voilths to take recautions to property. not only provides secure place to park of the vehicle and prevent them from being easy target for thief who may be targeting occur parked on the street. our community has been affected over the past few scombreers neighbors sdoided add a garage is proactive step to protecting

their vehicle and property. our neighbors are improving their protection and contributing to the safety and security of our neighborhood. so far moreover. the garage will enhance the peaceful neighborhood as we all know a well main tained property criminality significant cannot low to over all look and the if he felt community. but investing in their property my neighbor are not only improving their quality of life and eli having the value of the property in the neighborhoods. i urge the commission to consider my neighbor's positive contribution to our community and recognize the effort it improve their property. there have also always conducted themselves with respect and integrity.

they deserve a fair and just residence tlougz this matter. thank you. good afternoon i'm catherine i'm an architect history yen and preservation planner. i have a brief comment. in spchlt dr this has more to do with process than the proposed project. approximate i'm concern in the upon general we are seeing levels of review with regard to historic resources and though historic district has not upon been adoptod lake street. in the past planning department treated the your as if it was a historic district. i prepared an hre for a property at 1650 lake a block south at 18th and lake.

activelies a similar project with 2 street facing elevations but as a lesser innervention than here inform this case historic resource evaluation have have been required. built in 1909 is a contributor to a potential historic district and resource evaluation should be required thank you. i ni ti ei ri [inaudible].i [inaudible].i [inaudible].

[muffled] [inaudible].

seeing no questions to speak d r requestor have you 2 minute rebuttal. >> your time is running. your time is rung. okay. the xourt needs to be on. i file third degree to ensure there was know hre and there is a comprehensive building permit. there are no neighborhood letter

in opposition to the project for the following reasons. 6 days after i filed my dr mr. tailor sent an e mill to his neighbor i was copied the first part mr. tailor accused me of invading privacy. the end of the e mail explains why applying for a permit between their house and mrs. peek's house with a 10 foot feloniesful mr. tailor accused mow of ini having privacy and false 3 claims to file aid police department. am remembers justifies the talitier fence claiming miss peek allowed an elderly man to spy on them. the police were never involved. it is in the possible for me to invade their private easy.

bedrooms are on the west side of the house and grand jury on the east side where i took the pictures. don't look in bedrooms. mr. tailor and miss mccormick did in the file a police department they could not send the police to visit me. she did not call 911 is inarcerate the next is the upon upon transcript of the cull they were asked if they wanted press challenger and said, no the call was about an on going dispute with the neighbor. wrn other thing the quality of the work is irrelevant good y. that's your time. >> thank you. >> project sponsor you have 2 millions. i will go quick low. first we done askure neighbors to call in we irrelevant didn't believed why this was happening

i'm touched that they saw and call in the anyway. it was life low. second mr. deteriorateler and others who seen him on our niche's house taking pictures including our children's bedrooms we contacted the pleas that is prit from this merit. we don't know why he has been dog this we tried reach out to him to mote with him in person sprit from the process we have good relations and we want to have good religions and don't know why hoe did in the meet. i wanted to say that. just a moment there are many things to independent to number one we are not engage nothing serial permitting and hopeful low you understand the plans that we submitted and are in file are not the plans that mr.

dratler handed you. i just have in the even been able to review that other than on the screen approximate it is -- some other plan. the upon portfolio was separating from the building. we received i got received an emergency permit to replace the materials and in kinds and -- receive third degree >> dbi. we have not we have done everything by the boovenlg and -- hopefully mr. winslow can inform you further on the thorough preservation review that michelle from the preservation team completed. thank you. commissioners.

project is before you. of thank you. i certainly. the project was reviewed proper low with policy and the historic preservation review seemed to be appropriate and the,dition is immediatest i don't see exceptional circumstances related to the project. commissioner koppel and commissioner imperial. >> make a notion support staff's recommendation. >> second. >> commissioner mor? >> i would like to have mr. wins loam explain one more time why no hre was required and regarding the windows. it is interesting to read the partial preservation report it was informtive and hope you find closure to that matter we want to make sure this building falls within all of the guidelines that apply and restate them it

would make it comfortable for all of us particular low the commission supports the justification of historic district. thereupon is nobody stepping out of line >> so. this is an age eligible building. has not been determined whether an historic resource on its own or in the district that have been put forward but not finalized. that was put on hold the initial applied for it. however, staff's preservation staff review treated it has if it could or could have been a resource in terms of a ploying the same starnlsd the civic interdwror for historic buildings. those other compatibility with

the upon window and existing openings. the visibility of the garage expansion which is not only partial low below grade but setback felony to 20 feet and separated boy a 6 foot high felonies of rendzerring it visibility at all. this is the same standard we apply for an historic resource whether you are putting on a third story addition. the criteria is the same you want to make that visible and oaf00 other oolterations on the build being compresidentable. r view was done by preservation staff. am that's the review that took place as far as historic review did not guilty require an hre.

>> thank you that answer your question. >> only combhoenlt. i agree with staff saying that while the building is acorn are lot it is what a primary facade will not when you look at interior plan the sekwenls of theent row white porch is diagonal makeings the people move in western direction puts the masdz or the circumstantial ligz element the primary facade on 17th street that is clear when you look at interior. i want to be careful when preservation architect weigh in i want to make sure we are always in the roles that makes the building sensitive in changes. and not imper seeing what larger of the neighborhood.

that's all. thank you. you appreciate the comments as well. i don't see other comments >> if there is nothing there is a motion to in the tick dr and approve on that motion. commissioner braun >> aye >> ruiz >> aye >> diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial. aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> moore. >> aye >> tanner >> aye >> the motion passes umly. we are adjourned thank you. force force