over at marina green and crossing the street. indoor space will accommodate much of that need, but we will be seeking that outdoor time, both for recess opportunities as well as academic explorations in conjunction with chrisy field and the opportunities that are educational in nature over there and we look forward to those opportunities this year. we have worked with the fire department exclusively to make sure that the area is safe. we have practiced our drills and making sure that that is at the forefront of everything we do as an absolute priority to us. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon. my name is robin may and i have a son at the town school for boys. i live in the city and i'm actually a native resident of san francisco. my family and i moved within walking distance of the palace of fine arts. in an effort to respect your time, i am here as the parent

representative for our 280 plus families. at the public meeting with rec and park we did have many parents present. our parent community is thrilled with the opportunity to share this amazing facility with our sons. in the time allowed, i cannot begin to share with you how overjoyed the boys are to spend their days at palace of fine arts. thank you for your time and your consideration. >> thank you. my name is alan [speaker not understood] and i'm a san franciscoes are department and parent of a town school boy. and i just wanted to support this project and if anyone in the neighborhood has any concerns, they can come to any of us, including me and we'll work with them. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, i'm [speaker not understood], a resident of san francisco and the chief financial officer for

town school for boys. i've led the negotiations on behalf of town school with the san francisco rec and park department. i know that our project sponsor has covered some of this information, but it was a huge part of my life in the last year or so. i'd just like to share a little bit of that experience. in 2011 the trustees of town school approved a building project for our jackson street campus and it was clear that the size of the project would require us to relocate a part of our student population for one year. we began immediately searching for possible places. as you can imagine, that was not an easy problem to solve. i was losing sleep over this. it was for a year and a half that we were turning over tables everywhere in the city looking for a place. we couldn't believe it. all of a sudden we started seeing in the paper all the time, the exploratorium is moving out.

we began receiving suggestions that we should seriously investigate that space. it seemed like a long shot because of the city requirements of working with rec and park, we knew that it was going to be a process. the beginning of [speaker not understood] from the beginning to the end of the negotiation process with the rec and park department was a really great experience of two groups trying to come together with each of very separate constituencies working together to come to terms that we felt very good about coming to the rec and park commission in february to propose. both of those hearings in february, we had no public opposition and at the end of the february 21st hearing, the lease was approved and our problem was solved. we then got a lease from the city attorney. we went through that whole process. and in middle of july we were

given authorization to begin preparations to move into the building for the school year. as other speakers have said, we are delighted with that opportunity. it is -- it was a win/win for everyone involved and a couple of good things i think came out of it. one of the things for the city i think is that with the level of activity down at the palace of fine arts with the america's cup, the public rest rooms were overwhelmed with people so the school agreed to take on the responsibility for taking care of them. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. if you don't mind, commissioner, i'll start off with a couple of questions i have for staff. and first of all, let me say that obviously town school is a

wonderful institution and i'm excite today see the expansion on jackson street. i do think this is a good interim temporary use of space, [speaker not understood], and a good use for the school. but my question to staff is, so, was it a matter of timing that the school year obviously was going to start and the applications were going in that i understand that there was fire -- have been fire inspections and that now we're seeing the cu just a few weeks after the beginning of school season, school year? >> yes. >> so it's a matter of missed timing? or we did our best? >> right, i think just working with, you know, different city departments, i think the timeline. there was some overlap. so, right now they're trying to take care of some of the issues with fire marshal, address that, the school special requirements. so, they were trying to meet a lot of issues and considerations at the same time. >> okay, thank you.

so, i'll probably have some similar thoughts and maybe some commissioners have and that runs kind of consistent when we see schools come before us and some of the concerns of neighbors involved. and their questions that maybe the faculty want to address, and that is is there a program -- i'm sure there is -- in place for drop-off and pick-up, someone that will answer that question? >> yes. that was one of the issues, you know, for almost all schools, pick-up and drop-off. so, as part of the plan set, on sheet a.0.2, [speaker not understood], the main driveway coming from lumbar, it leads to lyon street is the white dashed line on the map. so, from lyon it goes into the back of the building. there is a very long driveway.

>> correct. >> so, where the heavy bold or white circle is, there is a door there. that's where all the pick-up and drop-off will occur. and once the kids are dropped off, the parents may go back to marina boulevard. >> okay, okay. >> yeah, it was an issue that the school considered and took it very seriously. >> great. mr. miller mentioned that safety was a top priority and i agree. there are a lot of cars there on marina boulevard. lumbar street kind of comes to a confluence. anyone who is trying to run across or walk across marina boulevard understands how busy it is. my question is, i think it was already alluded to, those organized classes that are using marina green, if you can give us some assurance, i'm sure there is, that they're escorted if they're classes that all of the kids understand

after school that they don't go about their merry way without giving consideration to the high traffic area. one of the public commenters mentioned there are no school signs and this is an interim use. so, i understand there is maybe not need for that, but i think we should take extra consideration given the number of cars and the speed at which they travel in this particular intersection. >> right, or perhaps the school could just have more monitors when the child or the children are crossing. and i think they don't do that. one of the family members said all the time on a regular basis. on occasions that they do, they probably will have extra staff to help monitor and make sure that all the kids are safe. >> representative of the school, mr. miller, do you have a comment? i'll start this and i may have jennifer warren who is the school head who can walk through the protocol, tackal the signage [speaker not understood], and i'll talk about the accompaniment. can you hear me okay?

signage is something we'd love to do more of. we talk about preservation. it's a historic building. our signage is limited on the facility grounds. and, so, we were restricted in terms of what we could do in the time frames that we have. >> yeah, my question -- my comments weren't worried about signage on the space, but leading up to the school a block, three blocks away. if that is the preferred direction, now we're getting into the public domain. i think the school will be very proactive if we can do that. the community felt that signage was good we would be very pleased to do so. there's two things i want to highlight. the recreation program is -- outdoor recreation is supplemental to the core recreation for the boys. we do have tremendous space indoors for recreation. we actually salvage the turf for the [speaker not understood]. it is actually inside the palace of fine arts available for recreation use. for our students and also available for the -- in our lease we actually have public accommodation.

so, that space is available. and maybe you can come up and talk about the students. these are not unescorted students to the public domain. maybe you can talk about the students that go at a time, what the procedure is [speaker not understood]. walk them to and from the green. any classes going over there which is approximately 24 students, those would always be a minimum of three adults escorting the boys over there. one of them being our on-campus security guard. there are handheld stop signs that they would hold in addition to the legal stop that is there per the city. and that will be used to escort the boys over there. there have been specific guidelines set up for playing sporting events parallel to the bay as opposed to perpendicular to the bay to address the students not being as close to the marina traffic as they could be if they were the opposite way. and all of our faculty has been over there. as i said, multiple times to

really walk through that and understand what those expectations are and can at any time request additional support and parent volunteers should they feel the activity requires that. >> okay, great, thank you very much. >> if i may add, just clarify one point with park and rec. why we don't need to do more activation of open space immediately at the building. a question came up, why we use inside the building and little marina green. and it's that the open space around the palace of fine arts is a designated -- it's a nonstructured recreation area. since we are a group use, we do not interfere with public access. we actually go across. so, that's why we have a protocol, but that's why we choose -- that's r why we're going to those recreation areas. >> got it. commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to express my full support for the project. i think it is a very wonderful continuation of the application for the expansion of the school on jackson street. i think it's very serendipitous

that we find an appropriate interim user for a facility which needs to be occupied and needs to stay within the active public eye of san francisco given its somewhat peripheral location and accessibility. i believe that the low-key hardly noticeable reuse of the building is not really an issue. i think the school understands living in density and living with care, so, i am in full support. i believe that the question i had about accessibility impact on neighborhood was partially because they use the rear of the building rather than the more tighter edges to the public roadway surrounding it. the marina green, if you observe it on weekends, has little league soccer where parents watch the safety of children crossing or potentially losing the ball into the driveway of marina boulevard. i believe that there is enough common practice.

i know that the unsignalized crossings on marina boulevard are sometimes an issue because particularly out of town people who do not know the rules about pedestrian don't always observe it, particularly when people abruptly step into the roadway. with the numbers of people described to attend to the students, three on 24, i believe that the boys school, i live next door to it, i think you can really watch children of that age with that type of ratio. so, i'm very much in support and would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i don't always do this, but i'm going to do it anyway. my firm spent a long number of years as a preservation architects for the palace of fine arts and it finally came to fruition. it is it was a wonderful project for us ~. so, i'm really, really happy that with the exiting of the exploratorium that there is a

use that has come in, even if it's on an interim basis because one of the worst things that can happen, of course, is for the facility to stay vacant. and hopefully rec/park in this interim time can find a user that will take over and continue to use the building. the park itself i'm not worried about because it is well used and people love it a lot, but i'm glad this interim period is being taken care of so to speak. >> commissioner wu. >> i have a concern with staff. we're voting on a cu today and we're able to put a time frame on the cu because it's clear how long town school wants to be in that facility, is that correct? >> yes. >> and, so, you know, on other projects we orphan say the cu runs with the land. even though the cu runs with the land, because the motion very specifically talks about 2013 to 2014, it is limited. >> yes. >> okay.

and i'm very supportive of this interim use. i think it's a great use, but i would have concerns about a private use permanently being in a public space, but that's not what's in front of us today. >> right. that would probably require a separate conditional use 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 the side 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 y