because of the number of bathrooms and things. thank you. >> additional speaker in support of the d.r. requester? >> hell oh, my name is brighty newman. i live at 1237 a 4th avenue. i am on the ground floor unit. i have lived there for 15 years. the light that comes into my apartment all comes in through the back. and as it's a ground floor unit, that lighting is extremely precious to us. we don't have very much light. so a main concern i have -- i was a little bit puzzled about if you are approving the

project, if the recommendation is to approve which drawing there -- there have been so many drawings. and the most recent accommodation that was suggested was to build three stories and then one rather than three stories and then two . and i understood sarah to say that -- that she was in support of that. but it was confusing to me just which drawing she was in support of. i'm in support of one that -- that keeps the -- what is built to a minimum. there are -- i'd like to say 12 people who are very, very much affected in their every day lives by anything built out in that lot. thank you. >> thank you. are there any additional speakers in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor.

>> good afternoon, commissioner, jeremy paul for the project sponsor. i'd like to thank sarah velve for her efforts in this matter. we've worked very closely. with these neighbors. i have tried to achieve the goals of the tong family and still -- and mitigate as many of the concerns as possible. we've submitted to you sets of plans shows what had been approved by city planning back in 2006 fold by the set that is that's currently subject to

review, recommending approval. additionally, we have come up with another plan that drops the rear extension, rear yard obstruction down to a single story and then makes up for some of the lost space with a 2 1/2 foot extension into what is essentially a five-foot space between the buildings. i'm going to go to the overhead if i could and show you some pictures of the sight. if we can go to the overhead please. so this is the sight and it is a small single family. we're adding a second dwelling unit and getting significantly more living space. this is a perspective rendering

of what is before you with the section 311. we're asking you to take discretionary review and aloy us to proceed with that project as i've shown you here. with a slight 2 1/2 foot projection into the five-foot yard keeping that rear yard obstruction all the way back. this gives you a prospective of how these buildings relate to one another. we are not creating a new precedent as far as intrusion into mid block open space. i'm going to skip this in the interest of time. you're very familiar with the discretionary review criteria and the need for increased density and the limitations of the code. but this -- i wanted to show you so you could understand the way light reaches the adjacent properties. mr. he is ler's property is the

one, not the one large property building next to the subject property but the small one nestled in next to it. it does not get direct sunlight at any time of the year that i've been able to trace much more than this. this was the time that i visited that i was able to get the most light on it. brighty newman, you see where the wooden stairs is, her unit is at the back of that unit, the garden unit. this is the morning shot. you can see the reflections of the sunlight on the roofs on the other side of the block. the only sunlight that -- that comes in -- in the summer and spring of the year comes in the afternoon and midday and afternoon. and i don't believe that we're going to create any new obstruction at that point.

there is a large building on 5th directly behind us which is known as the sweepstakes building. some of you may know of it was sweepstakes home in san francisco that is quite large. i'm going to go drop the overhead and go back to the camera, please. so i would suggest that we have a good plan as proposed with section 311. we are complying with the residential design guidelines. what we propose to do with this side setback at this point, i think, honors the interest of these properties as much as possible. it's clear that mr. hesler's property is going to be affected by anything that happens here. our existing building is projecting to this point.

so this addition that we're doing here is not going to have a significant additional impact there. i'm ready to answer any questions or show you more drawings that you might have. thank you very much. >> thank you. speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none -- public comments is closed. not public comment but now we go to the d.r. requester who has two minutes of rebutal time. not 10, two minutes. everyone leapt on me. >> i was elected to speak. i don't have any tests available. >> i'm sorry, excuse me, could you state your name for the record. >> my name is bridey newman.

by the way it's b-r-i-d-e-y. my bedroom is at the back. in winter, it's you know, relatively poor. probably around 2:00 in the afternoon is when we start getting the sun. in summer it's considerably better. my daughter and i have been fond of setting out a picnic in the backyard so that we could sit in the sun and eat our breakfast, late breakfast 11:30 maybe, noon in the summertime. i do a lot of handwork and i can no longer see it without sunlight so i go out there in the afternoon to -- to do it. in the summertime, i have set out in the backyard in the sunlight as late as 6:00, 6:30 day -- daylight savings time.

you had awe testimony 3:30 in your picture jeremy. -- you had autumn, 3:30 in your picture, jeremy. i've been out there gardening. the light is really a premium for all who live there. that's what i have to say. >> project sponsor you have two minutes. >> thank you, president olague. going to go to the overhead again and we really have made a great effort to try to accommodate the concerns raised by these d.r. requesters and our neighbors. this is the way this project was noticed. this is the sight elevation facing bridey newman's property. we're now proposing you take d.r. and approve.

in addition to this modification of dropping this, we've also eliminated the parra pet at the top floor and changed the entry of the building because it was raised as a concern that this might become a third unit on the ground floor behind the garage. the way we are currently proposing in our latest modification on behalf of the d.r. requesters or trying to address their concerns, eliminates the direct access from the street to the ground floor. so we've only entered from unit number one which requires you to go upstairs significantly reducing the likelihood that that could ever be used function nally as a separate unit. we've also created trash can storage because that was a concern along that breezeway along that five-feet section not be a trash storage. so there's a place for each of

the two units to store three trash cans. i think that this is a good plan. this building is -- has been vacant for a considerable amount of time. the tong family has been in fits and starts trying to get this project done. at this point the condition of the building is quite poor. it may actually have qualified under the soundness guidelines for demolition. i think it's lottable that this family wants to preserve this house, wants to extend it with adding a second unit. thank you. president o lague: the public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: if i could ask a question to the d.r. requester in regards to the plans that were presented for us. if you want to come up to the microphone? somebody speaking for the d.r. requester. yeah, i'm looking at this two

of these. it would seem to me that the impact is less with their revised plan where it drops the extension into the rear yard down to one floor. and while there is a little bit more of an extension on floors two and three in that one section, it still allows for a 2.6-inch separation between both. so i assume you're more favorable to their revised version? >> i'm a little bit reluctant to speak for everyone. for my own part, the part of my family, i think we feel that the modifications that have been proposed which seem to be a genuine effort to try to make some accommodations about our original concerns do, in fact, mitigate some of the impacts. so i think we would feel better about the revised plan that

jeremy has asked -- has asked you to accept under discretionary review if i understand the process. commissioner antonini: thank you, sir. i looked at these and of course the additions except for the bottom -- the bottom most floor zpwo back to a little bit short of the building to the lot 10 -- i'm not sure of the exact address on hugo but in any case it's the one to the left of the building as you're looking at it. so that would seem like you're only extending, even -- not even as far as that goes back the exception of that pop-out that is being proposed for the one floor. and i think the separation is probably a good one-on-one side. you've got a five-foot separation. on the other side, you've got a five-foot separation. in that one little section

there's a separation that's approximately two-foot -- well, 2.2 1/2 feet. that seems to be pretty good. i know i have a detached home. i think we are three feet from our property line. and in our particular property line it spessfies it has to be three -- specifies it has to be three feet from the property line. even though this isn't a detached separation, it seems like it's a reasonable amount of separation. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: you described revisions attached on this sheet. when did you make the revisions? and why weren't they submitted to us? because it's difficult that the record which goes with the approval is indeed a set oaf forms which exactly describe

what you're altering. i find it personally somewhat difficult even if you intend to place regarding the ground floor and the possible misconception that it could be misconstrued as a third unit that it's still the tradition of this body to have the drawings as par of the approval, should the commission decide to go that way? >> thank you, commissioner moore. the reason is that we recently met about a month ago and showed them the plan that you have recently been submitted with an extension all the way to the property line on the upper two floors. we showed that to the neighbors in a group meeting and i provided that to the planner that said that the modification required renoticing the project. we went back to the neighbors and spoke to them again with a modify cation pulling back away from the property line so that

the side to the east is somewhat articulated. but the planners still felt that if we were to file that as a new section -- as new revision that that would require renoticing under section 311 as we had all the neighbors that were affected by this at the table already, i didn't feel and i don't think that the planning department fwelt that it would be necessary to be renoticed rather that it would be best to bring council member tatiana kostanian: the commission as a d.r. request. commissioner moore: you are ultimately the person who is responsible for this project, how did you feel about that explanation? isn't it typical -- i know you work very thorough, very much the way it needs to be. isn't this a mess in your judgment? >> we did check with the zoning administration about the question of notification and for you guys to come for this edition to come to you without

notification. his opinion was that if someone were to d.r. it, we would be here anyway. and so the changes are getting the review that they had even though there was another notice with another d.r. on it. so at this point, this d.a. and the department probably said that this is probably property in this situation. -- probably appropriate in this situation. commissioner moore: i would personally not like this to set a precedent that you just kind of comment -- well, we can just talk ourselves through this here. and the problem is that when something goes from additions we attach to the physical manifestation of what we approve, there's lots of room for error and lots of room for misinterpretation. we vp found ourselves particularly in the past, many times caught in oh, we thought

you said -- oh, well some got missed. and since we don't have the data between d.b.i. and the planning department and all the other departments to fully integrate that there is no room for mistake, i would hate for this to be the precedent of how things are done here. partially we have cases perhaps where that are not as amicable between two parties or whether there -- where there was a third party who thought she or he would be heard and with us agreeing that particular detail of how something is documented in an approval, in a form is something i'm having a hard time with. >> commissioner moore, david lindsay from department staff. i should point out that there is a plan set at the back of your packet with a green tab that does include a representation of the project as -- as proposed to be

revised. that project has not been formerly submitted to the city. it's here for -- for review purposes. if you wish -- the green -- the green tab. commissioner moore: ok. >> yes. and it's the -- they've combined drawings of three different plans on the one which is a little bit confusing, i have to agree. but it's the -- it's the -- it's the drawings farthest to the right on that last set of plans. which represents the project with the one-story obstruction or pop-out. commissioner moore: yes, i understand. but the additional description he made about o mitting the front door which leads next to the garage of the ground floorp unit, that is a verbal description he's making without us having any evidence of how it modifies the unit.

2.1 commissioners that is the second drawings under the -- the blue or whatever tab. >> i might clarify, commissioner. commissioner moore: very interesting mr. paul. i only have two tabs on my drawings. the other commissioners have three tabs. i'm speaking really in the absence tab. so my criticism actually evaporates because i don't have that form attached next to mine. >> is it possible that the tab itself is gone and the pages, all six pages.

commissioner moore: that's the end of mine. i don't have it. so my comment are somewhat misleading and inappropriate to the audience. i'm speaking to the absence of a piece of information which i personally don't have, the others do. if that is the point, then my point is a moot point. i don't have it. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: it is sort of interesting because it is the progression of each tab of what has been revised and the final revision being to the right. if i'm not mistaken the revised first floor plan on 2a, shows the removal of the door already. there is no access from the street to the unit. so i'm not sure that we need to

know the special restriction if the commission feels we should do that. i'm certainly ok with it. but since the door has been removed and there is a half bath downstairs -- i think that's a half bath, maybe that's a shower down there. i'm not sure what that is. but i would move to approve what could be considered the revised sight. yeah. and take d.r. and approve the project with your revised sight plan as indicated by the green tab sheets a, 1 through a 8. >> second. reason on the motion to approve or excuse me to take d.r. approve the revision commissioner antonini? >> aye.

>> commissioner moore? >> >> aye. commissioner miguel? >> and president olague? >> aye. that passes 7-0. and i'm the 12 for case 08.91 dddd or 3134 golf street, an abbreviated discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm david lindsay from department staff and i'll be presenting this case today. >> the case before you is for request for discretionary review of a project that proposes to have horizontal and vertical additions to a building containing two dwelling units. the building is located in the middle of the block on the west side of golf street between francisco in the marina district. the project includes a horizontal edition to the rear.

the vertical edition has a partial fourth floor. it would be set back approximately 10 feet from the front facade to align with the fourth floor of the building to the south. i would be set 28 feet from the new rear wall of the building. it would be set tree to four feet from the building to the north. a portion of the fourth floor would be set back approximately five feet from the building of the soft. while a 14 foot wall would be from the southern neighbor's fourth floor. the block is a typical marina block with most of the buildings being three or four stories in height and containing a varty of styles. the subject building is currently the shortest building on the block with a three -- i'm sorry. the adjacent being to the south is four stories in height with a three story in height.

the adjacent building to the north is three stories in height. the d.r. request were filed by neighbors in the immediately adjacent buildings to the north and south and by a neighbor located two fronts to the north of the subject property. their concerns with the project include the following -- the project is oversized and out of scale the neighborhood. the project was resolved in a loss of property windows. they would reduce light and air to adjacent buildings. the project will dominate the street. the project will cast shadow and the building is proposed to be used for vacation rentals. the d.r. requesters have indicated that would find a acceptable project that eliminated the partial fourth floor, provide a setback of the third floor edition and reduce the horizontal edition. the project was reviewed twice by the residential design team. prior to neighborhood

notification, the r.d.t. requested that various sight, setbacks and increases have been provided to reduce impacts to adjacent properties. these requested provisions were submitted by the project sponsor and they were set out for neighborhood notification with these revisions. following the filing of the d.r.s, the r.d.t. re-reviewed the project and concluded that the project is in scale with regard to its height, base and administration. that it is compatible with the surrounding development, that the windows are not protected. r.d.t. also noted that both the north and south light wells are open to the rear yard of the fourth floor. the department recommends that since the project is appropriately mask addition that does not create

exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. thank you. president olague: thank you. we have four d.r. requesters, though. >> good afternoon, president olague and members of the commission. i represent three of the requesters. i went out and reviewed the neighborhood and met with the neighbors, sort of guide them through this. the department elected to treat this case under abbreviated analysis procedure. we don't believe that this is the correct way to appropriate this case. first, it's a two-story edition , horizontal and vertical edition. any time you have that situation you're going to have impacts. you're going to have a lot of trouble for the existing

neighbors, especially in a neighborhood where the buildings have remained relatively unchanged for almost 90 years. second, we believe this particular case merits an exhaustive review from the department because it involves some of the most pressing policy issues within the per view of this commission. and they were mentioned in passing by mr. lindsay in his presentation but they aren't addressed in the staff -- in any way. they are vacation unit, hotelization as it's referred to. and this case also involves an issue which has been returning to the commission over and over and over again over the past decades and that is the loss of afofferedable, small, rent-controlled units to remodeled demolition.

let's start with the conversion issue. the project sponsors purchased this small two-unit rent control building two years ago when they had an existing tenant. they wanted to convert the building to condominiums which they did in 2007. the tenant was then displaced and since that time the project sponsor has either occupied both units or rented these units out as short-term rentals or vacation rentals. the project sight was listed as for rent on two different websites. flip key and vrbo, which is vacation rental by owner. and it was only after the filing of the d.r.'s in this instance that this sight was removed from the website. so while the project was being pursued it was still up and for rent before the