i've admired that house for as long as i've lived in the marina. i think those people enjoy lovely space and probably have the room to expand within, without encroaching on the light and air space that the rishwains have. in closing i am here again just to support all the efforts and all the people who are here to do the same. thank you very much for your time. hi, my name is elaine gabriel. i've been a resident in the marina for 25 years. and i'm here to support jerry and pam. everyone keeps describing the side yard that faces jefferson street as a rear yard and the side yard that faces broderick street as the rear yard. but i'd like to suggest that maybe it should be the other way around. on a corner lot, the planning department determine where the rear yard is. not only the front is the

narrow side of the lot and the rear is the opposite of that. but in this case a substantial open space is opposite the wide lot dimension. on jefferson street and the area opposite the narrow side on broderick is already built up. there are interpretations that use the existing open area to determine where the rear yard is in order to make sure that the open space is preserved. by identifying the already built-up part of the lot as the rear yard, the planning department is saying the whole lot is buildable. i think in this case [speaker not understood] the broderick side yard is the required rear yard and then to find a proposal for looking at, which is what is reasonable to build in the jefferson side yard. you still wouldn't want to see the side yard entirely built out because of the set up. i've been in their home many times and it's beautiful and the light is one of the things that makes that home beautiful.

but maybe perhaps the minor pop-outgoing further than 5-1/2 feet away from that property could work. so long as there's no construction in the true rear yard on broderick street. and i just want to say that i think it would be a shame to ruin a lovely home. >> next speaker, please. commissioners, my name is bill gabriel and i've been a resident of the marina district for over 50 years. i live in the marina specifically because i love the beauty and the neighborhood charm of that marina. it is amazing how many changes i've seen through the years while maintaining the natural character of the neighborhood. when i heard of the proposal and how it it was going to compromise the original architectural design, i became interested and i am in opposition to the new design. when i walk my dog through the neighborhood and to chrisy field, it is obvious that the design of the marina was based

on a pattern. these patterns of side yards consist of open corridors that allow the light and air to be passed between buildings. this is a charm that you don't find in many of the other districts in san francisco. when the circumstance of 3700 broderick promising with the side yard be like a compromising [speaker not understood], if you will. it just doesn't make sense. the full width is in need to reflect the pattern on the block. the full width is also needed to make up the already built up backyard and the full width of the side yard is needed to provide adequate light and air for the adjacent buildings. i have looked at the rear yards of all three homes. if you saw them, you would recognize that this side yard makes up for the loss of the rear yards. these lots are shorter than those on the rest of the block. by approving side yard construction, the planning department is setting a very

dangerous precedent for the marina district. the side yard construction needs to be denied. in the sense of compromise, they have agreed to allow the fourth floor construction. they also hired an architect to come up with a design which would help their neighbors accomplish what they want to do within the envelope of the home. thank you. ladies and gentlemen of this board, my name is manuel baroka. i'm an old timer in this city and a long-time resident of the marina. i'm very concerned about how easily one can get a variance without taking into consideration how this building addition and alterations can

affect the next door neighbors or even the entire area. to my knowledge, these folks have a 3,000 square feet home with a large house designed for a family to live comfortably. and what they want to do within the inside of that house is their own business and their privilege. however, adding an elevator to the outside of the building will have a tremendous impact on their neighbors. it will reduce the latter's property value, will lock them in, it will block the light of one of the neighbors' windows, and it will alter their air and garden space.

in my building on 3rd street, i built an elevator large enough for four people in the area on the inside of the building. it changed very little of the interior area when the elevator shaft was built. it seem to me that they can do the same thing without affecting their neighbors while limited in space in this city of san francisco, and every bit of garden area is considered special. i thank you for listening, and let's hope we can keep the marina as green as possible. thank you very much. good afternoon, commissioners.

my name is [speaker not understood] and i've lived in the marina for eight years. everyone that lives here understands that the landscaping and open side yards are as important to the neighborhood as the character of the buildings. i'm going to show you some photographs of landscaped side yards to let you see how wonderfully they look in the neighborhood. this is a -- you can kind of see it there. this is a home between 62 1 and 627 marina. this is the side yard between 6 69 and 675 marina. this is actually right across the street from my home and this is 37 34, 3736 broadway --

i'm sorry, broderick, and it's the backyard of 6 99 marina. ~ and this right here is the side yard between 37 33 and 37 37 rick broderick. i'd like to say i purchased my home eight years ago in the marina. the main reason i bought it was because of a lot of natural light ~ and just being able to look out of the windows. at that time i didn't have children. i do have two kids now. one is 18 months and one is five years. regardless, they look out of my windows all the time. they're always looking out there and they're looking at the beautiful natural landscape of the marina and our street and the marina to the back forward. so, i'm here to support pam and darren and thank you so much for your time. >> thank you.

good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time. my name is [speaker not understood] and i'm a resident of the marina. i live a couple blocks away. i want to talk about the variance and opposing the project. the whole point of the design guidelines especially in the review process is to look at issues that are not regulated [speaker not understood] regulated by [speaker not understood] standards when there is something about the side or it's complex to know the [speaker not understood]. here we have a very unusual circumstance, a block with unusually large lot with -- to accommodate open side yards and three corner lots that are all designed around a single side yard. if this is a circumstance that merits the [speaker not understood], i don't know what else would. it's truly unusual situation. which brings into question why we should have design guidelines and the d-r process

if we aren't going to use them. three feet is the standard building code. [speaker not understood] setback at least three feet requires special fire rate of construction. to randomly apply the building code standard to [speaker not understood] design patterns and issues is both the easy way out [speaker not understood] the situation in this case. there is no relationship to the pattern on the block or the situation of the immediate adjacent properties. the setback was designed at 8 feet because the lot was even a 33 feet width to accommodate the normal width building and an eight-foot side yard. secondly, the minimum side yard on the block is 8 feet. the primary light and air to the two adjacent buildings comes from the side yard. the builder has already taken up most of the rear yard with construction to provide for the

bulk of the lot's open space and the side yard instead of the rear yard. a three-foot side yard would mean that it would be breaking the normal pattern of building width by allowing a 30 foot wide building adjacent to homes that is 20 feet wide. ignoring the pattern of side yards in the block which is [speaker not understood] width of 8 feet. and this unique contextual design around the side yards is important to the residents of the adjacent homes, to the neighborhood or the city when in fact it is such a unique situation we should focus our efforts on reviewing this and not preserving. thank you for your time. hello. my name is kimberly crowder and i'm a resident of the marina. i live at 1935 jefferson

street. i share many of the thoughts and sentiments of the other marina residents. for me, like pam, i have a small child. i'm a mom. the kitchen is where i spend most of my time. i enjoy opening my windows, letting the air, light, and circulation permeate. i cannot imagine a large brick wall being constructed to completely obscure any view i could possibly have. i consider a home a sanctuary, but this is not about money. it's not about a quality of life. and i'm not fortunate enough to own a yard or a garden and i live in a small space. i can definitely appreciate the other gardens and spaces and gardens that people have for me and my child. thank you.

good afternoon, commissioners. my name is darren [speaker not understood]. i'm an architect here in san francisco. i've been brought in by the d-r requestors and the neighbors to present some certain documents some of which you already have, others you don't which i'd like to give to you now. and these represent some studies that were done on the property. ~ sun studies the first set of documents i wanted to talk about were the floor plans that you've already received. i'd just like to be clear that these floor plans aren't represented to be a substitute design for the project. it's obvious with some difficulty to take a much larger [speaker not understood] and shrink within that all the problematic requirements and make it work. however, i think the floor plans in general show that with some obvious trade-offs, a fit

is possible to stay within the existing building envelope. i'm only going to show you the ground floor level. the floor levels are fairly similar. the trade-offs that you see are the depth of the garage which is deep enough for a couple navigators, suvs, and the clearances around the stair are held to a minimum of three feet wide which for stairs still fine, considering the open space that wraps around it. the elevator works all the way through the core of the building. it's a much smaller elevator than what they have proposed, but it certainly fits a wheelchair and can work. and again, there's room enough in this existing footprint to move around certain thing within this program to try to make either a larger elevator or -- well, it's always going to be a trade-off to try to get a fit using their existing program if all of the features

are required. the second set of information is a little bit clear and speaks for itself which are the sun studies. they're taken for each of the 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