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 your 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

and that's legislativeed by the board >> thank you for please take a seat in the witness stand that out again. >> i agree the side yard acts in a lot of distancing look the rear yard. i even it's too much of american people addition in the side yard. i know the project sponsor as an architect about you ever think about the addition we're going what we recall calling the rear yard instead of adding on to the

side yard. we briefly looked at that because most of the addition is, in fact, $0.40 for the stairs and a elevators to put it there would require us enclosing through the bedrooms and it didn't seem okay for the function >> yeah, but again we're not going to get discouraged. so there's only a certain amount of room and it seems like there's a lot of remaining that didn't make sense >> so, i mean i think i've had a chance to go out to the site

with both project sponsor. those houses were built at the same time and it goods into this side yard so the addition is out of scale and a inappropriate of what i'd consider the rear yard of this property. it's almost assessed they're open space you know this area and coupled with their side yard aids the other requesters side yard but looking at more space in the rear yard would be appropriate >> commissioner wu. hearing the zoning administrator has said though you have

concerns about the rear yard so it's not ultimately up to us it's your call >> but i think along the lines confirm i see more development ultimately to the rear where the bedroom expands but i have concerns about the large extension and most of it within the elevator is clearly before you for discretionary review. >>right. >> i have concerns. >> seeing the proposed compromise prosecute the project sponsor. i hear the discussion about the side yard and how much the elevator and stairs encroaching into it i that that i can live with the proposal so one foot

less than what was originally in our paukt paublth but eliminating the rear yard portion of it. i think that obviously there are a lot of interest in this case but focusing on the residential guidelines it's - the fact that the window lot line windows are not protected it's hard to find the reasoning. i think i'm out of sync with the rest of the commission >> commissioner moore. >> i would agree with those examiners who expressed concerns that a massive addition like the stairs and the i've said for the last seven years that our attitude towards property line

windows needs to be reexamined relative who when buildings are built. their ability with respect to each other and one and one doesn't make two but to treating create a larger south and the side yard properties are - property line windows is essentially. under any circumstances that's not only for single families but large apartment buildings all the way down do the mayor and that includes separation by 5 are 10 feet. i've lived p in one of those buildings and still do in nob

hill and i've proposed that challenge that the department needs to move ahead so we ultimately don't measure the - i'm in full support of not building in the side set back and reventing the need for a elevator based the cheer assessment is speculative but it can be accommodated in order to serve an aging couple i'm in support of the expansion to the fourth floor but not in support of the excessive stairs pressing into the side yard. >> i would be supportive of that

as well. >> commissioner. >> some dine observations. on the northeast corner the intersection between the side yard and the backyard whatever we're going to call. theirs indicating a lot of fluff. there's not indicative on the floor space i don't know what that is if it's unlabeled i assume it's unimportant. on the next floor up above the living room and whatever we have a desk. and we have yet another bathroom and on say bedroom floor we have a bathroom that's to serve family whatever they come to stay is served by a full

bathroom and full shower or something. i think there's plenty of room to shove things around within the existing footstep the goiflt bedroom is a 20 by 12 you can can i ever a bathroom space out of that. i maybe more radical but i'm going to make a motion to deny the project and allow the first floor and allow the encroachments >> i'll allow the project without encroachments without into the side yard but allow the

bottom floor. >> i'm for the changes in the rear of the building but i don't know the projects of the maker of the motion will accept the rear addition with the zoning administrator granting the difference but project respond representative you're raising your hand. >> commissioners on the new balcony prepares your tennis is to allow addition but not consistent open the street. >> we don't want to make it impossible with the needs of elevators or a different kind of staircase but if they use that

with as much gadget they might have to remodel it. the extension for the guest bedroom on the underwriters floor and expanded the kitchen at the second story and no expansion for the enterprise below and what was pointed out out as the fluff on the northeast corner that's not part of the proposal but the captains of the kitchen and bedroom would be fine >> yeah. i think that's fine. >> i'm confused i actually supported getting rid of the side yard but the entry of poems

believes is in and out our jurisdiction. i prefer we not make suggestions around that but i think that the issue that's been identified is more of the side yard not the rear yard and to the extent you want them to create - i mean, you, have it within reason we don't have is a giant hoa over san francisco and i think the side yard is not reasonable space i don't necessarily have an opinion about the other additions that's been added to the motion but i wouldn't want to go too far >> despite suggestions from project sponsors i would generally allow the motion if it's okay with the maker but not

deny the space between the - >> the side yard. >> the side yard. >> commissioner. >> we would allow in the rear yard up to the property line the existing property line and the second addition is to the kitchen. >> i'm not sure are there additions that group from that. >> existing first and second floors laterally among the lines with the arrogantly that's been expressed the gadget and the covered entrance below doesn't seem necessary so i was

concerned about those elements although if the commission is going to say you can't do the side yard addition they made need some addition space to allow the stairs so if the commission would like to set a simple envelope so they do encroach any farther into the rear yard authenticated square it off that would require a veterinarians but - >> no, we're not negotiating the project here. >> i want to clarify. i want to see if i'm

understanding what you're talking about so. this corner is partially in the side yard >> actually, if we could see the surveying off to allow the existing encroachment to the rear yard to the side? >> from the department staff. sheet one .2 the existing side plan. from what i'm understanding from the commissions motion this the the existing rear wall of the plan. essentially it's projecting the side wall out and the rear wall out would be the addition of the

project >> that's what the zoning mist. >> thank you for putting that to picture. it would be the first and second stories only where they're proposing the expansion >> in the ground floor area. >> commissioners there's a motion and a second can i get the motion that the proposeers are accepting this? in that case if there's nothing further i'll call the motion with no additional encroachments in the side yard allowing the scaring off on the first and second oo