four solstickes. [speaker not understood], march and september are pretty similar. the red indicates the new shadows created by the addition which it's obvious that they do have impact on the window system to the north. now, i wanted to point out particularly during the summer months there's a fair built of light being blocked for that neighbor to the north and all of his windows essentially. the winter months, not so much. actually, very little impact at all which one might argue makes -- when they do have sunlight available to be that much more important. what's not represented clearly in these documents is the impact of the light on pam and darren's property. >> sir, your time is up. thank you. >> thank you.

patricia vaughan, marina cal hal owe neighborses and merchants. i'm supporting the d-r requestors for several reasons. number one, this is basically an expansion into the side yard, what looks like to be an elegant glamorous set of steps. there is enough room in the existing building that you do not have to go out. this is the major portion of the expansion and the side. an elevator and a bathroom. architecturally with my background, this can be remodeled without the expansion. and my point with this is that you have to look at 28, 33, 35 baker as well as the 1490 case,

and 23 35 baker was a very similar single-family home where they wanted to expand into the side yard and this commission voted that side yards were important in that case as well as the 1490. so, it's not just a commercial apartment building, but this is important as the uniqueness of the area. the third issue is that there has been no offer of the compromise except for 6 inches a few months ago, and 6 more. so, there is no offer of a compromise on the total by the applicant. one foot just doesn't really do it. and it's an obvious [speaker not understood] if we're going to railroad this through the commission and we're going to get what we want, we're going to get back, we're going to get front, and they've already given us a hike. the neighbors were very

benevolent with giving them the height. ~ height but they want more. now, my question is, what do we want to do for the policies for the marina and cal hollow? because both the cases i just mentioned were won in each case. there are three more coming up very much like this. are we going to do -- obliterate a way of life for the exception of one person and one couple for a house this size? that's my question. thank you. >> okay. are there any other speakers in support of the d-r? okay, sorry, one second. seeing none, i am going to call the project sponsor, please.

how much time? >> you will have 5 minutes. >> actually because there are two d-r requestors and they each got five minutes, you actually have 10 minutes as well to match their time. >> thank you, jonas. >> if you leave them there, we'll hand them out. i don't think 11 by 17 will get on there entirely. good afternoon, my name is david armor. i'm a principal with [speaker not understood] architecture. 3700 broderick street is owned by john and angela grall, the recently retired customer who chose to make san francisco their home for the rest of their lives after more than 30 years on the peninsula. [speaker not understood] is a marina based business and has a well established reputation,

with thoughtful renovations in the district having completed more than 30 projects in the half decade. the firm is known for creative projects [speaker not understood] and mediterranean revival style. let me speak briefly about the project requirements and our proposed design solutions. the owners ask that we design improvements that make careful accommodations for their future life needs including the likelihood of impaired mobility. he has a documented 30-year history of serious medical issues related to his back and spine, a condition that has left him temporarily paralyzed [speaker not understood]. this began with relocating the front door which is currently on the second floor down to the street level so that access can be made to the the elevator. the entry which is right here

is sandwiched between the existing garage and the north property line wall. initial design included a more extensive use of the buildable area shown in yellow right up to the north property line and without expansion into the required rear yard. however, after a careful analysis of adjacent conditions reveal the presence of numerous nonconforming property line windows, a conscious decision was made to respect this condition despite the the the fact that these windows are not protected by the planning and building codes. this is accomplished by retaining the first 17 feet of the current eight-foot wide side yard, space here in yellow. and transitioning along a graceful curve creating a three foot wide side yard for a distance of about 15 feet. the neighborhood character. in consideration of the original street facade and

building massing, neighborhood adjacencies and neighborhood contact, the stair elevator expansion was setback 23 feet from the front property line and shaped in detailed in a sensitive manner taking queues from similar nearby corner homes. due to the massing reductions and side yard accommodations and in consultation with planning department staff, a decision was made to relocate the remaining programmatic elements behind the elevator and along the rear wall of the home and seek a variance for the areas within the required rear yard due to the substandard 58 foot lot length. these [speaker not understood] do not result in an increase in overall building length or height and simply laterally extend the two-story rear wall of the building. the proposed changes would not require variance if the subject lot was standard in length and constitutes [speaker not understood]. through a careful study of available background materials, the design team was able to uncover a period photo of the

home seen here on the left. the owners were taken by the vintage image of the home and decided that a concerted effort be made to recreate as much of the original facade design and detailing as practical to reclaim the lost insensitive alterations and enhance the most essential character defining feature of the neighborhood, the marina revival style. on the right you'll see the existing home and numerous windows have been infilled or relocated. this original french window and balcony was demolished at some point in the past and the window relocated, the bay window was infilled as well as a lot of ticky tacky elements added to the facade. our proposal is to restore the region alpha sad back to its original character including all the windows and balk nic

and decorative it iron work. ~ balconies the project will include [speaker not understood] and fire system to provide the best preparedness in the event of an earthquake in accordance with the owner's wishes and the general plan. the open spaces around the property will be extensively landscaped including the maximum expandable allowable areas and the green space and the public way through dpw's sidewalk landscaping permit process. so, in response to points raised in the d-r requests about building size, the typical corner lot in the marina is occupied by a large four story multi-unit building covering nearly the entire lot which you can see in kind of light blue scattered around with red, the subject property. this condition is therefore unexceptional and not extraordinary.

it is consistent as well as guidelines which states corner building may take advantage of greater massing and scale and height [speaker not understood] to emphasize their role in defining the character of the neighborhood. regarding the side yards, the d-r site of the existence of pattern of side yards, the 37 -- could you keep that up for a second? the 3700 block of broderick which you see here includes 14 lots, four of which have side yards constituting neither a pattern nor character defining feature. the rare instances prevailing side yard is 3 to 4 feet. the d-r requestor's brief says brood rick is the most significant open space -- is the most significant open space adjacent to the d-r requestor's homes ~. on the left you'll see the diagram that was included in the d-r request with a

color-coded in green the mid-block open space, however, they failed to color code the open spaces of all the adjacent rear yards which is shown enlarged on the right. contrary to the d-r requestor's brief, a side yard of the subject lot does not provide any views oregon yen thaition to the batter front and arbitrary [speaker not understood] has no tangible transition from open waterfront to pattern of zero lot line conditions particular to the neighborhood. this is simply happenstance. ~ regarding the lot line windows, the d-r requestors reference numerous lot line windows and a claim to loss of light, air, and privacy the lot line windows are not protected by the planning or building codes and, in fact, represent a loss of privacy as well as a fire hazard to the subject property. and regarding some of the other items in the d-r request about

general plan, the city and planning policy codes, the thoughtful design of the stair and elevator addition and side yard was specifically undertaken to respect and enhance the neighborhood character retaining most of the eight-foot wide side yard. the proposal to occupy the entire buildable area would be a true example of failing to respect neighborhood character and breach of 11 of the city's general plan. the proposed project restore original character of the home enhancing the culture of the neighborhood. the spacial seismic accessibility improvements will help ensure the home is a viable and site of the neighborhood [speaker not understood]. regarding the d-r requestor's plan alternate, the d-r requestors provided a series of floor plans that they feel show how the project requirements can be accomplished within the building footprint. however, a cursory review quickly leads to the obvious conclusion that this only

appears possible through the use of an impossible size for an elevator and extremely narrow stairs and circulation pathways throughout the house. the alternate design completely fails to meet the most basic accessibility requirements and makes an excellent case to locate elements of the project outside the current building envelope and make care of use of the open areas of the lot. one of the last speakers 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