authorization. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> i'm also very supportive and happy to see the building being reused in the interim period while rec/park and the neighborhood figure this out. just a question on it seems this needs a cu. it's a school use in -- is it because it's not a public school or why does it need a cu in a pu district? does a school need a cu in a pu district? >> it's spelled out in the planning code section under 234 that in a public zone if elementary school, a high school will require conditional use. and not all uses are permitted. so, some uses -- [multiple voices] >> it seems like the school district's property is generally in a p district. >> yeah, not all -- most schools in the city are in residential districts. that's why you see a lot of cus

and a lot of residents involved in the school project. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm very supportive. it seems like a very good solution to a need the town school has, and it doesn't hurt the city any. rec/park gets some rental for a space that is presently vacant and they're losing some major sources of revenue in the next year or so. so, i mean, it doesn't hurt to have that rental income, too. and i'm assured it sounds like the parking solution is a good one and it's particularly a good choice in my mind a k through 4. the lower school, because those little guys probably need to be dropped off as close to their destination as even more so than the ones in the upper part of the school. so, and it doesn't interfere with the theater which is still an active part of the palace. so, i'm in favor and i would move to approve.

>> i'm sorry. >> there is a motion and second on the floor, commissioner. >> sorry. >> would you call the question, please? >> sure. on that motion to approve with conditions commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. commissioners, that will place you on items 16 a and b for 2012.1027dd and 2012.1027v for 3700 broderick street and the zoning administrator will request a conditional use for rear yard variance. >> good afternoon, commissioner. glenn cabrera for department staff. two discretionary reviews have been filed on 3700 broderick

street in addition to the two discretionary reviews the department has received two letters in opposition, including a letter from cal hollow association who opposes the project. the project proposes to construct five and rear horizontal additions [speaker not understood]. the existing parcel fourth floor will be expanded towards broderick street within the footprint of the existing building. the proposed facade alterations include replacement and relocation of windows at all facades and portions of the rear and side horizontal additions are located within the required rear yard and therefore a variance is being heard concurrent with the discretionary review hearing. specific to the side horizontal addition, the side -- existing side yard at the north side facade would be reduced to three feet at the subject property. with regards to the rear addition, the rear addition would propose to align with the existing rear walls which is

approximately six feet from the rear property line. the residential design team has reviewed the project and fear the appropriate set backs have been proposed by the project to provide light and air to the adjacent properties and side line windows t. was recognized by the residential design team that the project voluntarily protects light and air to the adjacent buildings as adjacent property line windows are not protected under the planning code. at this time by way of reference to the zoning code, this property is within the rh-2 zone district which allows [speaker not understood]. in comparison to the rh-1 z zoning district which requires side yards, a lot with this -- similar to this subject property's lot would require a three foot side yard. for this project they are providing a three foot side yard at the north property line. as the project is a corner lot, the rear yard of the subject

property is not sought to contribute to the overall openness of the mid-block open space due to the depth of both adjacent neighbors and furthermore the residential design guidelines acknowledge a corner lot has the opportunity to house larger developments and corner buildings as corner buildings play a stronger role in defining the neighborhood character. at this time the residential design team and the department did not find extraordinary or exceptional circumstances with the project or the d-r concerns and the department recommends that you do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. d-r requestor number 1. >> commissioners, if i understand correctly, ms. gallagher is representing both d-r requestors? i am, mr. ionin. >> thank you. president fong, commissioners, good afternoon. for the record my name is mary gallagher and i'm an urban planner working for both d-r

applicants, pam and darren, [speaker not understood]. as mr. cabrera just told you, the project proposal is for an addition in three different directions. the first floor expansion to the front, a multi-story expansion and acquired rear yard which triggers a variance, large four-story expansion into a currently open 8-foot side yard. i'd like to start our presentation today with a little history about the site and the neighborhood. because in this case, the historical context is really key to help understand the importance of the issues that we've raised. as you know, the marina was the site of the pan pacific international exposition of 1915, east of baker street was torn down at the end of the exposition and streets were laid out to foster development. civic discussions ensued, how should this land that is down here be developed.

well, the principal concepts that emerged from that debate was that single-family homes would be developed on half acre lots surrounded with open space and developed as gardens. this community was going to be known as marina gardens. [speaker not understood]. they developed them much more typical of san francisco standards lots. and yet the idea of the marina garden was not lost to these developers. many of the first buildings in the marina were, in fact, single-family houses with front setbacks, side setbacks and gardens. this is one of the early marina gardens on marina boulevard. we also have side yards that are developed in several different ways and as in the letter we wrote to you. some of them are front to back.

most often occurring closest to the water to the marina boulevard and in this case also to another body of water, the house of fine arts lagoon. in some cases we have [speaker not understood] developed side yards. in this case and common cases a one-story garage and also a secondary one-story entrance. but all of these cases have in common is they were built adjacent to residential buildings with property line windows which provide light and air to the rooms overlooking the side yard. this is another example of a one-story garage. this is in fact the case you saw about a year ago and i'm going to come back to that later. what we have not said or as mr. armor implies in his d-r response is that all of these

iterations or any of them are uniform [speaker not understood] and the contrary, they're varied and unique. they're frequent enough to be clearly characteristic of the district, but scarce enough such the loss of any single side yard would constitute a threat to the entire block. by 1929 the odd side of the 3700 block of broderick had been developed. this is across the street from the project site. it is that side of the street that set the pattern of side yards for the block. when it's eight-foot, 10 foot and 12 foot side yards. 1932 [speaker not understood] purchased the fifth of the acre, a fifth acre parcel across the street. sherman was a successful builder and had a lot of experience developing the typical san francisco lot. this is the parcel that he bought, the dark line. with about 102 linear street of

frontage for broderick street, the typical subdivision would have called for four lots on broderick of about 25-1/2 feet wide. instead of laying out the more typical standard lot, sherman continued the lot pattern established across the street by laying out the corner building with a 33 feet frontage including standard 25 foot wide building and eight-foot side yard that corresponded to the side yards across the street. sherman knew that he was violating the normal pattern side yards, but that he wanted to continue that pattern. quite obviously. another thing he did in this instance was to build in what was typically the required rear yard or just the rear yard. and instead traded that [speaker not understood] for the front rear yard to the side yard. he did this by shortening the

lots of the corner property and the d-r applicant's properties. so, we have three small lots. it's important to note the lot is not substandard, my client's lots are. now, here's where things get really interesting because instead of designing the adjacent two buildings, my client's buildings here and here, two standard san francisco buildings, froth and front to rear with room orientations to match and light and air fronting the rear and back ~. he oriented both of these buildings towards the side yard. again, not a mistake, a conscious decision. the side yard orientation is not just [inaudible], but it's obvious when you walk in either building. when you walk in pam and darren's lot, for instance, this is down right here, you walk up the east side, the blind wall.

and to enter the living space, you have to turn into the side yard. the room you enter is the focal point of the living space. it's a dining room and it has a window directly onto theide yard. it's really the only light and air in that room and any other rooms. many rooms in both of these houses have windows that only look on this side yard. this design concept of focusing three buildings around a common open space is a tradition that we call the commons. in scotland it's called common wad land and is a fundamental tenet of land use there. i mention this because thomas sherman is a scotsman born in glasgow and he came to the united states at a early age. his ship passenger record showed that he was brought back to glasgow at a young age and that he traveled back and forth between the british isles and the united states many times between the 1930s. it is inconceivable that thomas sherman was not familiar with the concept of the commons.

his properties were very clearly important to sherman. right after he finished construction he and his wife moved into the corner building at 3700 broderick and remained there many years. he only worked on the sherman every bit was to landscape and hone erring the tradition of the marina gardens respecting the 8 and 10 foot patterns and bringing design traditions of the commons to san francisco. ~ project sponsor might ask if this side yard was so important to mr. sherman why didn't he include a deed restriction on the property. and the answer, of course, is that thomas sherman like i saw was a product of his time and place. he would no more have recorded a deed restriction on this property than he would have asked his wife ivy for a prenuptial agreement. it simply would have been inconceivable. to him and other marina residents, side yards were clearly intended for permanent preservation at the full width at which they were designed. just want to briefly return to the k 1490 san francisco street.

you heard this july 2012. corner building adjacent with property line windows. planning department designated the side yard as the rear quader. buff you all recognized it was a side yard to the adjacent building. [speaker not understood] was to add an outdoor deck onto the noncomplying garage. the commission uniformly concurred and mentioned the fact that, yes, side yards are important to the marina, especially that in that they are overlooked by property line windows also characteristic of the neighborhood. commissioner antonini stated for the testimony in that hearing that there were several types of side yards in the marina. francisco case, like the case before you today and both properties are corner buildings in the marina, adjacent to residential structures with property line windows overlooking the side yard. there is also similar 1390 francis could is proposing a deck in the side yard and 3700 broderick is proposing in fact enlarging a balcony and adding a new balcony in the side yard

which the planning department has also designated as a rear yard. the buildings are also the projects are also dissimilar in a couple ways. side yard on broderick is notably more open, more characteristic of the side yard on its block, more critical to the light and air of the immediately adjacent neighbors and whereas francisco only proposes -- only proposed exterior deck broderick proposes both exterior balconies and substantial construction and three different directions. you may recall staff recommendation for that case was to -- no d-r approve the project and you may also recall, commissioners, you voted unanimously to overrule the department 7 to 0 vote. on this more egregious violation of a more important side yard, we hope you'll do the same. >> okay, calling now speakers in support of the d-r. each will have three minutes. john hook. darren [speaker not understood].

karen [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. david [speaker not understood]. alan silverman. and bill gabriel. honorable commissioners, i'd like to thank you for hearing our discretionary review. my name is darren rishwain. i live with my wife pamela and our two kill den at 1990 jefferson street. ~ first of all, i'd like to provide you with over 90 signed letters of opposition all from marina residents to this project at 3700 broderick street. i am sure you have also been given the numerous opposition letters mailed to the planning department by mr. cabrera. i would like to thank youv on some very important points discussed in some of the letters presented to the planning commission office. the first letter written by mr. [speaker not understood], a marina resident, lawyer, and owner of two lots on the same

block as 3700 broderick street. in his letter he cites precedent setting cases in support of our discretionary review. the first point states that a variance must prove a hardship will ensure will ensue if the variance is not granted. town of agenter ton versus templeton, california appellate case, ~ judged the voluntary purchase of a lot too small for further development is not a hardship justifying the granting of a variance. in a letter written by jeff wood, a member of the cal hollow association zoning committee, states that, and i quote, to significantly reduce or destroy these side yard open spaces to provide arbitrary benefits to a single homeowner, ashe trayerly denies the same light and air benefits to all other property owners on the common side yard ~. it is the duty of each planning commissioner to respect and protect these common benefits that are provided for the enjoyment of not just one individual to cherish or throw away, but for all the public to enjoy.

another letter written by darwin [speaker not understood], the previous owner of my home at 1990 jefferson [speaker not understood], and i quote, i previously owned, remodeled and lived in the home and know how the side yard allows for the majority of sunlight and air flow into the home, garage, and yard. this is due to the fact that over 50% of the windows are western facing. i also know the sibleys who own 37 08 broderick street [speaker not understood] would eliminate sun and air and cause significant privacy issue. i truly do not believe the planning department of san francisco wants to set a precedent for future projects and thus destroy this architectural design intended when the marina was built in the 1930s. this has been quite an education these past few months since we were forced to follow our discretionary review with the sibleys. [speaker not understood], the resounding theme and comments were consistent.

isn't it very difficult if not impossible to get i variance in the city? ~ according to code doesn't 25% of the lot rear and/or side yard need to be nonbuildable? isn't that one of the largest homes on the block already? why would a neighbor want to block your sunlight coming into your home? i don't even remember receiving a notice regarding this project. >> sir, your time -- in closing we hope you consider all of these points made by our neighbors. >> sir, your time is up. thank you. >> next speaker, please. good afternoon. i'm pamela [speaker not understood], darren's wife. our home is very special to us as it's the place where we live and create memories with our family. i'm a stay at home mom with two young children. most of the time is spent in our sunny kitchen where we eat, play, eat, play, and i'm sure you get the picture.

if you came to our home you would see that you're immediately drawn to the western side of our home because that's where more than half of our windows reside. the thought of a side yard rear yard and vertical construction next to our small home is very concerning and will sacrifice sunlight and air into our rooms. as you heard today, we already have a noncomplying, nonconforming very large apartment building on the east side of our home. we are a family truly living in each square foot of our 1500 square foot little home and we appreciate all the light and air that comes through it. compromised sun means little to no sun in my daughter's room where we open the shutters every morning and look at the sun. this means our kitchen window will no longer have the fresh ocean breeze. light and air important to us and our children, just the same way as it is important to mr.and mrs. [speaker not understood]. we are not asking for anything more than any other family would ask for in our situation.

this fact immediately raised concerns when we received the architectural plans for 3700 broderick. i shared my concerns with david armor, the project sponsor's architect. we vetted our home to show them firsthand how the addition would block all of our light and air. because the sponsor's architect didn't want to provide us with a sun study nor story poles no look at alternative with us, we felt we had to hire an architect of our hone and you will hear from him shortly. [inaudible] you can see the proposed elevations looking from our house. these are the existing and these are the proposed. the dotted windows that you can see here on these areas are our windows. the project sponsor left out one of our windows, there are western facings that reside right there, pretty large window, master bathroom window that gets a lot of sun and we

open it every day. we pointed this out in the d-r application four months ago. all the windows on the west side of our house benefit from light and air from the side yard as mary pointed out and in some rooms the western window is the only window in the room. with the proposed construction, a new building wall and balcony, this home is going to come within 5-1/2 feet from our dining room which is right here. and the new construction also comes all the way back into the rear yard. the effects from the expanded balcony and new balcony will be noise just like the deck was going to be at 1490 francisco street. the new balcony appears to have a taller parapet than it does [inaudible] and you can tell that by the size of the windows. but there aren't any dimensions -- >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. thank you.

my name is ford sibley. i'm the owner with my mom and my grandmother. i've been the owner of this house since the '50s. we are a true definition of san franciscans. my great grandfather moved here from france to open a nursery, bought his first piece of property on chestnut street in 1890 and had a french nursery there and was instrumental in building those gardens she spoke about during the pan pacific expo. and my grandfather opened the creamery on chestnut street where he met my grandmother. and they together bought the 37 08 broderick which is here and raised my mom and i spent a good portion of my life living in the house there as well. and i just want to bring up the point that the project sponsor i think had a very good point about the architectural significance and size of corner houses and why they should be

given extra importance, because as you can tell here typically a corner lot would take up the additional space over here. but this developer chose to infill that portion of the lot that's making the typical corner lot substandard in size. and as you will notice when you drive around most of san francisco, most of the time those corner lots were taken by apartment buildings because the developers knew they could make more money by putting an apartment building on the corner and not needing the back yards and side spaces. so, i think when the developer decided to build this house the way he did, he intended that side yard to be the outdoor space for that house. and i would say that this corner is one of the most unique corners in san francisco and that you don't often see the open space like that between two typical single-family residences. in all the examples that she showed earlier, you see a garage or a [speaker not understood], but not two typical marina residences.

as i was a young boy i often remember the tour buses would stop in front of the house and take pictures and one day i stopped the tour bus driver and asked him why do you guys stop in front of our property and take a picture? he said when we come around from the golden gate, we want to give the tourists an opportunity to take a picture of two of the most beautiful traditional marina houses in all of san francisco. and, so, i feel that by building into those side spaces it will diminish what we consider a beautiful space, a beautiful house, and a beautiful neighborhood. i have a very interesting paper here that shows some of the things that the marina, when they first built it, the marina vanderbilt track. and i would like to say i'm glad that we still hold some of the things that the developer intended important and i'm glad that many of the things the original developer intended are no longer held as important. you can see here we want no unsightly improvements, white or caucasian race only, and

limited to residences, flats and apartments, setbacks for front, lawns, and gardens and fences not over 6 feet in height and uniform sidewalks. so, i hope today you guys can see our point and hopefully preserve the beautiful marina. thank you. >> next speaker, please. good afternoon, thank you for having me. my name is david [speaker not understood] and i'm a practicing attorney here in the city. my wife and i moved to the marina when she was [speaker not understood] residency at ucsf medical center and we thoroughly enjoyed our time there and we're looking to purchase a home. three of the attributes we're looking for is a side yard, rear yard and plenty of natural light and i am here to avoid what i would consider a destructive precedent in the neighborhood. it's my understanding the project at hand proposes at

least five variances from the rear backyard requirements. first addition of a separate laundry room. second, the expansion of a mud room to a bedroom on the first floor. third, the expansion of the kitchen and powder room and addition of a deck on the second floor. fourth, the expansion of a bathroom and balcony on the third floor. and fifth, the expansion of a fourth floor tiled roof feature, 4-1/2 into the rear yard that currently exists. as you all know, san francisco planning code section 305 article 3 mandates that to meet a variance you must meet the initial threshold test of the variance must be to the extent necessary to overcome a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and in addition you must meet 5 distinct elements. i do not believe that any of these are met here. to speak to the threshold test, [speaker not understood] in the law of zoning and planning describes three expressions would indicate the existence of a practical difficulty.

first, the restriction destroys or greatly diminishes value of a specific piece of property. second, the property in question cannot reasonably be put to conforming use. and third, the use restriction viewing the property in the setting of its environment is so unreasonable as to constitute an arbitrary and capricious interference with the basic right of private property. here i have a hard time seeing how a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship is being suffered only one year after the subject property was purchased. more over, denial of the variance won't destroy or diminish the virginiavthv of the property, [speaker not understood] and it will certainly not be so unreasonable as to interfere with the basic property right. in addition, the proposed variance does not meet any of the requirements that would allow for a variance. for example, section 305 only allows for a variance in

exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. they apply for the particular property. i could cite several cases for you. one supreme court opinion [speaker not understood] there the supreme court wrote that only at best a small fraction of any one zone could qualify for a variance. here, an addition of a powder room and second laundry room, if you grant those you're going to have to grant a variance to every other person in the marina. [speaker not understood] city of los angeles is another opinion. a variance must be denied unless the applicant is deprived of privileges -- >> thank you [speaker not understood]. sir, your time is up. thank you. thank you. nobody else has this. thank you. >> if your name has been called, please approach the podium. i will call some more names. [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. mary smith. nicole prieto. and pam [speaker not understood]. if you would like to line up,

you can do so on the screen side of the room. >> you can start speaking, sir. thank you, commissioners. first of all, thank you for approving a project that i waited three years to get to this point, [speaker not understood] on the consent calendar. appreciate that. after three years. i decided to stay an extra four hours because i am a character witness for darren rishwayne who i've known his entire life. he is a fine neighbor and can't believe that they have to go through what they're going through in order to, what is obviously just maintain the condition that allows their home to have appropriate light -- >> sir, are you speaking in favor of the project? absolutely in favor -- no, i'm actually in favor of darren's position. darren's position in protecting his light and air. and, so, the effort that he had