mentioned in proposed modifications, we did reach out to the d-r requestors yesterday and sent some proposals which we've more clearly represented here. in deference to the objections raised by the d-r requestors, the project sponsors have proposed the following modificationses to directly address the specific areas concerned. number one, we're proposing to move the side addition on the north side of the property line an additional foot creating a four foot separation to the property line and essentially splitting the difference between the built area and the side yard and open space [inaudible]. and we're proposing to reduce the width of the rear deck about 2 feet aligning it to the corner of the neighboring property as well as eliminating the third story which is the square right here and retaining the existing corner of the

third story. so, in summary, despite the fact that the planning department recommends the approval as proposed, we're asking for approval with the modifications that are proposed and -- >> thank you, sir. [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> now calling on speakers who are in support of the project. hello, commissioners. i am angela [speaker not understood]. i'm one of the occupants of 3700 broderick, it is my home. i just wanted to give you some background. i have a statement and i have some comments. generally i lived on the peninsula for over 30 years. however, we also eagerly anticipated our retirement and moved to san francisco. we love the city and all it has to offer and especially the chance to live in the marina.

since our last child became gainfully employed, we started to look foyerth perfect home to spend our last years in this wonderful city. we did have some special needs so we spent over a year looking for a home with our realtor and our architect came along in every instance to make sure that we could achieve the design that we needed. once we found 3700 broderick and david approved, [speaker not understood] this could meet our needs and become our last home. just to reiterate our special needs for this home and why we need wheelchair access and an elevator, john has a long history of back problems. his numerous consultation, injection, surgery and rehab and is actually in discomfort most of the time. in the past he has had at least five or six acute attacks of sciatica, debilitating, pain down his leg. two of his three siblings have

already had surgery. our daughter had to change her medical specialty finding that she could not be a surgeon because she simply could not stand for hours at a time with her back pain. while he is stable at the moment, the family history is uppermost in our minds when planning a remodel to this home. we wanted to make absolutely certain that we have covered every eventuality with regard to john's possible future health complications and that would be reflected in this design that david has brought to you. sorry, speaking in public is terrifying. mary gallagher, the rishwains and their architect said we could accomplish all of this within the current footprint. it is simply not true and cannot be done without an addition. [speaker not understood] we had invited them over to our home to show them our plans and encourage some discussion about them. it should be noted that the

owner of 37 08 broderick [speaker not understood] lived in san rafael and has rented her home. i would just like to assure my neighbors we want to everything to make this as absolutely comfortable as possible for them. and thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm [speaker not understood], structural engineer. i would like to say i'm extremely proud of my relationship with the architect, [speaker not understood]. i worked with the last five years, extremely talented. they don't take their assignments lightly. of course, they understand the requirements of the client. some of the speakers have mentioned, some of those requirements have to do with the client's physical needs. we're making this property

handicap accessible. that is an important feature. the requirement is bringing it back to its historical beauty. we'd like to show you some of the pictures. sensitive in design, elements have been added to this project the last few years [speaker not understood]. to renovate and restore some of the historical significance. more importantly as you just heard the architect, in the last comments of this presentation he stated to you and the neighbors that he's willing to compromise. he stated that he can review the extension on this side yard by a foot. but that's the only compromise that you can do in term of geometry on the side yard to be able to accommodate an elevator. the neighbor's consultant has

shown an architectural feature that looks like an elevator, perhaps for pets. but not the size that is required for the physical needs of the client ~. the architect has also suggested some modifications on the rear yard, modifications on the side. he doesn't take his assignment lightly. he understands the requirements. he studied the neighborhood. he studied the patterns. and more importantly, he's willing to compromise. the project sponsor not only wants to move to san francisco and live, as some speakers have said, a few years on the peninsula. he wants to spend his senior years in san francisco. that's what we need to promote. we want to promote people that want to come back to san francisco and experience urban

living. let's welcome him and let's encourage him to do this wonderful renovation and please do not take d-r. thank you. good afternoon, commissioner. rebecca schoomaker, a friend and also the real estate agent for the [speaker not understood] asked me to make a statement for her. unfortunately she had a business commitment and had to leave early. so, i'd like to read this. i've been a san francisco resident involved in real estate the north side of the city for 43 years 27 of which have been as a marina homeowner. i presently live in the marina with my husband. in addition i have been a licensed realtor since tick and am currently the number one realtor in the marina for several years from 2007 to the present basically.

~ 2006 and this is across all brokerages in the area. i've known john and angela since 2009 when i purchased a two-bedroom listing of mine on pierce street. they were not my clients at the time. they saut to determine whether the city was indeed their ideal for their post retirement life. ~ sought they came to love living in a flat neighborhood near the water and soon began to process the process of finding a full-time house in the marina. they became my clients with a clear criterion from the start that they would need a house with an elevator. john is very private about his physical condition. i know this because i'm a friend of his as well. and he has had various spinal injuries over 30 years that have left him in pain with physical options despite numerous surgeries and injections. this is greatly curtailed his physical activities, but happily he can still walk for exercise. it is uncertain how long he'll be able to do so. ~ however. when i found 3700 broderick for

them off market, they quickly brought in their architect, david armor, to evaluate the feasibility of installing an elevator that could hold a wheelchair so that they could age in place together. this process occurred before they made an offer. it was made clear that the lower internal staircase in the house did not meet code and was difficult to navigate and would need to be reconfigured. thankfully the marina, flat neighborhood offers an active chapter of the village which is seniors aging in place. given the input received 3700 broderick was a clear choice for them. this is through my clients are and have been for the four years that i have known them. they are straightforward people who speak plainly and abide by the rules. this campaign against their plans for this house is a disappointment to them and a blemish on an otherwise neighborly marina district. the suggestion that a trend exists for side yards, landscaped or not, is pure fiction.

the overwhelming majority of marina properties consume the full width of their lot and i have literally never heard a discussion about side yards being a factor in anyone's choice of marina property. there's more. may i go on? >> you have 15 seconds. okay. one last item, the owners of 1990 jefferson were distraught that their neighbor david lacy, former owner of 3700 broderick that my client did not approach them with an opportunity to purchase this property and [speaker not understood] listed with me and sold his property -- may i make a personal statement as well? >> your three minutes is up. this would be my statement -- >> you used your three minutes to read her statement. otherwise she could have just simply submitted that to the record. good afternoon, commissioners. i would just like to address one issue and show a picture here if we can --

>> speak into the microphone. my name is john [speaker not understood]. i'm the owner with my wife at 3700 broderick street. [speaker not understood] the previous speaker that was here is also a marina resident. he lives on broderick. i don't think he mentioned that. i would like to show you this picture is a shot that i took out of one of the windows of our house towards the window that has the kitchen wall of the rishwains. and i took this at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon in a day in may. the important thing is that you can see from the shadows in the building that the light that's coming into that area is coming from the top. it's coming obviously from the south. it's the middle of the day. none of that direct sunlight that you see there would be impacted in any way with the additions that we plan to make for the house. so, to say that they would be clothed in darkness is simply fiction. there is plenty of light. it will remain a beautiful area

in that backyard after the addition as well. i thank you for your consideration. >> are there any other speakers in support of the project sponsor? okay, seeing none, d-r requestor, you have a rebuttal. we sure thank you. i just want to quickly review the compromise that the project sponsor ha given us and note it was submitted yesterday after close of business, this after four months of asking for something. ~ has [speaker not understood] is the proposed new building and the red drawn on by mr. armor is the new proposal. ~ the yellow you'll note that it's very difficult to see any of the yellow on the outside of his red line. that's not an effect of the small scale. that's an effect of the fact

that this isn't any compromise. so, almost all of the proposal is still going to remain. this is one floor, another floor. so, we get one corner on one floor taken away. the elevator is needed for accessibility, we agree. we want to help them build an elevator. a circular stairway in the side yard is not needed for accessibility. that is the biggest problem with this proposal. we also do believe that the elevator can be accommodated within the buildable envelope. the deference to mr. santos, my friend, we had a structural engineer look at the plans that we drew up and he concurs that everything that was drawn in the plans can be built. i'd like to submit this for the administrative record. i'd like to talk just for a second about this issue of side

yard versus rear yard. elaine gabriel gave us an interesting observation. she said normally you look at the end of the lot to determine where the rear yard is. i'm sure this is what mr. sanchez did to determine the rear yard location in this instance. but i'd also like to read david lynch's testimony. at the 1490 francisco case that you heard when asked by the commission how one determines in a corner lot, what is a side yard what is a rear yard, mr. [speaker not understood] said and i quote, we usually determine the rear yard, we usually determine where the rear yard is based on where there is any open space that conforms most to what would be a rear yard. i know i'm sure mr. sanchez will take issue with this and that's fine because we're not appealing his decision of where the rear yard s but we want to make the point again, thomas sherman traded off that rear yard for the side yard. it is chris

-- crystal clear from the sand born map. most of the open space in this lot is on the side yard. most of the open space for this block is completely blocked from these small buildings and the dark green that mr. armor showed you, yes, they have a small, you know, usable open space together, a visual open space, but it pales in conpair son to the normal large space when we expect the mid-block open space. i think really that summarizes everything. i'd like to thank the neighborhood so much. it's the neighborhoods who we depend on ho help us decide what is important in the neighborhood ~ and i think they have spoken to us clearly today. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

i just want to address a couple of points with respect to the timing of the compromise proposal. you know, during the time that we've been discussing things with the neighbors and with their representative, all we ever got from them was build nothing except maybe a little bit on the top floor over the existing building envelope. from my point of view, that's not really offering anything either. there is no compromise there. we've actually offered to reduce the scale of the building. as far as this notion of the grandiosity of the circular stair, it's really kind of funny. based on my initial point about how the garage and the existing entrance determine where the elevator located, the circular stair simply matches the width of the elevator. and by using a winding stair we're able to shorten the

length of the stair and use less of the side yard than otherwise would be taken up by a rectangular stair. we specifically curved the shape of the stair to reduce the way the mass of the extension would be impacting the side yard area and soften it as much as possible. so, as much as people like to focus on it as a grandiose feature, it is all about responding to the specific site conditions. and just touching last on the elevator dimensions, we got our data from an actual elevator vendor. we went with the small [speaker not understood] that could accommodate a wheelchair. people talk about a 3 by 4 elevator, that is complete nonsense. you cannot put a wheelchair in a 3 by 4 elevator. the elevator itself is only 30 inches wide, it is effectively a double elevator. thank you.

>> okay, the public hearing is closed. and opening it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner antonini. >> thank you for all testifying. i will reveal at the beginning of my comments that i know dr. darren rishwain. he's an endodontist in marin county. i'm aden at this timev in san francisco. we know of each other, but we do not do business together very often. most of his referrals come from marin and my referrals go to endodontists in san francisco. but there is no economic connection between us. ~ a dentist and his wife pam is a friend of my daughter-in-law, angie antonini. i will tell you i can be objective in this and i will tell you why as i give my reasons for being supportive of many parts of their d-r request. i had occasion to visit their house in the past and i often -- i will always go to visits whenever i'm requested by d-r requestors or project sponsors and i've done it for the 11

years i've been on the planning commission to try to see for myself what the situation is. and when i was there, it happened to be a month when the sun was towards the north, probably may, maybe june, and it was a time of the day when the sun was going down and you could clearly see that most of the light into the kitchen was coming through a window that faced through the space between the two homes on broderick street. and in the upstairs bedroom that was shown earlier, the same thing existed, in fact, that had no other source of light other than a window that faced out there. now, we realize that, you know, there is no absolute requirement that that area be there because they are property line windows in a technical sense because as has been explained, the lot on the corner was a very wide lot, 33-1/2 feet, and the rishwains'

lot and the other lots are narrower. but i think i am in agreement that there is a pattern. i have studied it very carefully along broderick street and the rishwains' re dense is a key lot situation. ~ residence they have a small negligible backyard and the space between them and the project sponsor's house even now, what would be the rear yard of the structure at 3,400 broderick or 3700 broderick, rather, is fairly small. we know that there's in the nonconforming additions in that rear yard already and they want to add more there. and i don't really have a problem with -- no problem at all with the additional height on top of the building and not much problem with their additions on the -- what is the rear yard, but i am in agreement that what is the side yard is really the rear yard and it's been pointed out by

the d-r requestor's representative that it seems the architect designed it in this way and it makes a lot of sense. as you look further up broderick street, you don't have the separations as you go further north because the houses on the east side of broderick moving towards the bay have their own rear yard. so, they get their light from there. and across the street you run into some more difficulties and many of the streets on the west side of broderick have their separations between them of various sizes as been pointed out. so, as much as we can protect that space to the north side between the project sponsor and the d-r requestor's home at 37 08 broderick is important. another thing that came up was at the very beginning, the staff talked about zoning, it's

rh-2 and talked about it really isn't an rh-1 detached area. but there is a difference. we often consider situations where we not only look at the zoning, but we look at the density. and while there might be zoning that allows for larger number of units on a space, what is really there are houses that are essentially oftentimes rh-1 detached or at least one wall of them is detached and that's the pattern that you see as you move towards the palace of fine arts to the west and towards the bay to the north. it was a decision made by the planners of marina to try to make separations between those homes. maybe they were some of the first built, maybe they were influenced by the residential parks movement that was prevalent in the '20s in san francisco where playstations like st. francis would and forest hill and c-e-q-a for being built.

we heard as it was built in testimony, as time went on and more of the marina was built it became denser and closer. even the houses in the heart of the marina have almost all flats or single-family homes have very good size rear yards, even though you can't see them because the houses are next to each other. you know, i think in this particular instance, a lot of the sources of light come from that corridor. so, those are my main feelings on the situation and i would be very much in favor of the addition, as i say, to the upper floor. i don't have big problems with the addition in the rear, although i appreciate project sponsor's offering to cut a little bit of that off. but i have a problem with the addition to the north. if there does have to be an addition and we'll see what the other commissioners feel about, but certainly if we could make it as minimal as possible. in our particular home which is

a detached single-family home, we have a stairway that turns on itself, which is customary in most of the homes. and while it's maybe a little harder to negotiate if there is an elevator there already, then you wouldn't have to use those stairs. but if the project sponsor doesn't want to create this circular staircase, which might take a little less space, maybe a trade-off with them using part of the space that exists and part of that space out there, a lesser amount than proposed, might be a solution. so, those are my main feelings on the project. >> zoning administrator sanchez. >> thank you. i want to speak briefly to the variance. as has been noted there is a variance from the rear yard requirement that's being sought by the project and there is no side yard requirement, also has been noted under the planning code, but being raised under the d-r as a pattern and they would like the commission to consider that. i first heard this variance on april 24th of this year. at that time the section 311

notice had just gone out a few days prior and the adjacent neighbor spoke in opposition to the project. at that hearing i took a matter under advisement but i did not take a decision on the variance. i did express concerns related to the variance very much along the lines that commissioner antonini expressed. i did state that there were some grounds for a variance, but not to the full extent as has been sought. i had hoped that the parties would meet and discuss and come with a resolution that would address all the parties' concerns and i'm very dismayed to hear an alternate that was not proposed until yesterday and i did receive an e-mail from the project sponsor yesterday with those revised plans. so, it's unfortunate that there was president this dialogue earlier to come to some compromise, but i think i'm more along the lines that commissioner antonini of allowing some addition in the rear yard in the area where they have the guest bedroom and

the kitchen in making that area a bit more functional. but in the portion that's off to the side and what would otherwise be, we could colloquially call it a side yard did have more concerns with that and the massing of that. then again, the planning commission does have the ability to be more restrictive than the decisions that i make in a variance, to be more restrictive than reduce the project further. i want to remind you of your ability to do so. but if i do design a part of the variance, the commission could not approve a project in that area, just to clarify. so, if i did deny the portion that does extend into the side yard, the commission could not authorize the project in that area, but hopefully we can have a discussion with the commissioners about what the desired design solution is here. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> i'd like to start with a couple clarifications. i need some assistance in understanding a little bit more clearly about the volume and

the square footage in the house. perhaps the architect can. so, my understanding is client is moving into the building after having, as they said, lived on the peninsula. and i assume -- i don't know this for a fact, but that they will be the sole occupants of this building? >> yes, they live there already. >> so, now we're proposing a house that has one guest bedroom and three bedrooms? >> right. the owners have three grandchildren and who are all entering ages will be getting married and having grandchildren. some of them live out in other parts of the country and they would like to have a family home that could accommodate their family here in the city. >> thank you. then another, just an observation, if the intent of

the design is to accommodate a potential wheelchair situation in the future, maybe, maybe not, you know, the fortunate thing would be to not have that happen. but i'm quite familiar with the back issue because my colleague -- not retired, retired from the firm because he's trying to deal with a similar issue. and another very good friend of mine who is the executive director of a nonprofit in japantown has now been almost bedridden for three years. so, i'm taking this seriously and this isn't an attack or anything, but if the intent is to provide elevator access, then shouldn't other portions of the house also at this time be designed in the same way? i'm just looking at your wc off the master bedroom. i don't think you can maneuver

a wheelchair in that space. this isn't part of the d-r. i'm just, you know, trying to get an idea of the design approach. >> please stand by; change of captioners