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 neighbors filed the discretionary reviews. the units were listed as available through the holiday season and for most of 2012 before it was the website was taken down, one of the neighbors had the foresight to print out.

it's attached as exhibit b. and it rented for $250 a night or $1,600 for five nights. it provides the description of what was being offered and there are some testimonyals in there for people who are vowing to return to rent it again. and of course, the neighbors were well aware of the rentals that were going on because they met. they met foreign tourists. they meet people who didn't belong in the neighborhood who were staying in the building. as set forth in my brief in detail, this is the most important issue for housing in the city, affordable housing, rental housing, upper class housing, condominiums. the loss of these units from the market that san francisco is facing is negating the work that you're doing here. if you read the article, the

"new york times" article that was attached to my brief, it's close to 5,000 units, 6,000 units that are being lost from the market. the couple of hundred that you approve every year is small compared to that. so this should be addressed. this should be artsdzed by the department. this should be addressed by this particular case. before moving the permit forward required disclosures of the full rental history with each website that occurs require assure -- assurances that they're being lux sureiated merely more rental. this is the issue is being ignored by the department. even though any one of us could get on the computer right now and see 1,000 illegal rentals in the city and i was able to

go on -- i was surprised at the extent of this issue. i was able to go online and print out 32 units i attached as exhibit two within two blocks of this sight that are currently on just one of these websites. and there's at least a dozen of these particular websites. we're talking about thousand of housing units, these illegal rentals. and the department after i got the case and started investigating it. i did a sunshine ordinance request on the department to find out what kind of enforcement's going on. virtually zero. the department has five open enforcement cases, five. and i reviewed those files. two of them are old. b and b cases from the 1980's and the 1990's. and the rorse strictly because of neighborhood complaint. rowdy parties, tourists that

are too loud or carrying on. and none of those complaints are being pursued in any meaningful way. so it's up to this commission to stop the flood of the loss of these rentals. and this is a contemporary problem that's going on right as we speak. when one of these cases finally finds itself in front of you don't ignore it. require a deeper investigation, make a statement that the commission is concerned about this crucial issue. if the hotel tax go to the city, shouldn't notice of special restrictionings be recorded? this is about savings units and there's not one mention in the staff report although mr. lindsay did mention it in passing. the second issue, and one that i wish the commission would tackle, the is demolition by remodel. i've been talking about this for year, but this is a particularly