or 3700 broderick, rather, is fairly small. we know that there's in the nonconforming additions in that rear yard already and they want to add more there. and i don't really have a problem with -- no problem at all with the additional height on top of the building and not much problem with their additions on the -- what is the rear yard, but i am in agreement that what is the side yard is really the rear yard and it's been pointed out by the d-r requestor's representative that it seems the architect designed it in this way and it makes a lot of sense. as you look further up broderick street, you don't have the separations as you go further north because the houses on the east side of broderick moving towards the bay have their own rear yard. so, they get their light from there. and across the street you run into some more difficulties and many of the streets on the west side of broderick have their separations between them of various sizes as been pointed out. so, as much as we can protect that space to the north side between t

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

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 y

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

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, seein

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

she mentioned to me that the students would actually be walking down marina boulevard to broderick and cross the intersection there and come back to the little marina green which i don't know if we can quite pull the projector here. [speaker not understood]. do i need to hit anything? there we go. [inaudible]. but basically the issue is that this is the house finance building. students will be coming out lyon street, [speaker not understood] the intersection of baker, broderick crossing marina boulevard, and then coming back to [speaker not understood] to come to little marina green. when i was discussing this, she mentioned the reason they were doing this was because the other two intersections at lion and baker were not safe. ~ i actually totally agree with that in substance, but i'm not sure the right solution is to have -- hope that these young children are going to always go down to broderick and cross at the appropriate place. and, so, you know, i'm hoping that if authorization is given, which i said i'm generally in support of, there be conditions attached to that around the saf

and and the school on broderick and i hope that you and your partners that you can create something of similar quality and ability to really grow and be exciting with that the building becomes almost like an architectural icon and people want to go to because it is so, and so i am in support of this building, and i am curious what my other commissioners would say but i would like to move that we approve. >> second. >> commissioner borden? >> i am not going to go over the points i think that it is an accident project and it is creative in ways and responsive to the neighborhood and the community, and the eastern neighborhood and so many things that we have discussed at this commission, one thing that imented to compliment you on is the muni bathroom and i think that is a great benefit and i serve on the civic design committee for the arts commission and one of the things that we struggle with is the location of these bathrooms that they have to put on the streets and they are not good looking facilities and not a good place to put them and this really is a great response to a true probl

crystallization of ego, broderick says okay, 1 or 2 is fine but mums in a day -- multiples in a day, a bit self-absorbed. do you think it's feeding into this culture of narcissism? >> i think it's self expression honestly. it can be obsessive if you do way too much but if you keep it kind of normal, once a day or twice a day i think it's fine because i mean i post you know quote unquote selfies but it is to express yourself and i guess connect with your friends and stuff. >> julie spira, what led you to coin the phrase social media anxiety disorder? >> when i was speaking with a lot of my friends in social media and an huge social media enthusiast, people were getting depressed if they weren't getting enough light on themselves, it was a popularity contest. maybe they weren't feeling good about themselves if they weren't getting the recognition they hoped for. >> damon, do you think it's part of the technology which is part of what our culture has adapted to? >> that is part of it, one of the things i thought about going back to socrates time, we have access now to so much more techn

from canada is an ambassador for water just like peter broderick. exempt that she's a consumer activist a winner of the alternative nobel prize and a strong critic of nestle. nestle and. we've asked the company for an interview but was still waiting for a reply from the time being we can still know these pictures on the fringes of a media event. nestle is one of the most profitable companies ever annual turnover exceeds one hundred billion dollars it's the world's largest food and beverage multinational adored by investors big and small. more than a quarter of a million staff. and the chairman of the board is a man with a mission. is often wondered what is the most single important factor that could ensure a company continuing for another one hundred forty years and i always come to the same conclusion water. when it comes to bottled water nestle is the undisputed well. the company has bought up many of its competitors and now owns more than seventy different brands the new alternative totals more than nine billion dollars. with a takeover of power.

peaceful affair but this year is different because of the participation of nestle's chairman peter brodericknd they stick to members of the swiss workers' union say that nestle itself violates human rights and has no place in such a forum you could catch people have to buy expensive bottled water but poor people cannot afford it this is not a body human rights. have to face the main thing is to simply say the border is a human right is perhaps not enough in reality it is not a matter of whether water is a human right because quite clearly it is it's more a question of how we can implement the human rights. we shouldn't reflects so much from whether water is a human right but rather reflect on how to ensure permanent access to water in daily life. that says there are also a few other basic problems which need solving. the most important point without question is the more must be invested in. water infrastructure. and secondly there should be no subsidies for the owners of swimming pools and golf courses and for biofuels produced from plants cultivated specifically for this purpose. but there

from canada is an ambassador for water just like peter broderick. exempt that she's a consumer activist a winner of the alternative nobel prize and a strong critic of nestle. nestle and. we've asked the company for an interview and was still waiting for a reply from the time being we can film only these pictures on the fringes of a media event. nestle is one of the most profitable companies ever annual turnover exceeds one hundred billion dollars it's the world's largest food and beverage multinational adored by investors big and small. more than a quarter of a million staff. and the chairman of the board is a man with a mission. to have often wondered what is the most single important factor that could ensure a company continuing for another one hundred forty years and i always come to the same conclusion he water. when it comes to bottled water nestling is the undisputed well. the company has bought up many of its competitors and now owns more than seventy different brands the new alternative totals more than nine billion dollars. with a takeover.

peaceful affair but this year is different because of the participation of nestle's chairman peter broderickd they stick to members of the swiss workers' union say that nestle itself violates human rights and has no place in such a forum you could catch people have to buy expensive bottled water but poor people cannot afford it this is not a body human rights. have to face them in some way to simply say the border is a human right is perhaps not enough in reality it is not a matter of whether water is a human right because quite clearly it is it's more a question of how we can implement the human rights. we shouldn't reflects so much from whether water is a human right but rather reflect on how to ensure permanent access to water in daily life. that says there are also a few other basic problems which need solving. the most important point without question is the more must be invested in. water infrastructure that's right and secondly there should be no subsidies for the owners of swimming pools and golf courses and for biofuels produced from plants cultivated specifically for this purpose.

broderick served as an assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york where he helped protect new yorkers by prosecuting cases involving organized crime, international narcotics trafficking and violent crimes. i urge the senate to vote in full support of mr. broderick's nomination. thank you, mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: and yield back the time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question is on the caproni nomination. mr. cardin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote o

and ryan broderick who has been covering the story for buzz feed. i thank you for being with us. we just heard courtney say how nbc and cbs had to retract their identification of the shooter because of an i.d. found by the shooter. all this information is getting out there so quickly nbc and cbs apparently also had sources so it's not as if they gave this information out willy-nilly but oftentimes that does happen. the access to social media we can get this information out so quickly it can get out before people have a deep breath. go ahead. >> a lot of these news events follow a slash setup. you'll see twitter and it will snowball and then local media will join in or in the case of boston bombing or sandy hook, you see twitter data show you what's going to happen and become the major news story before anyone can tell. >> that's not phil terd. >> it's not filtered, it's raw. >> and j.j. there's a danger beyond just getting out the information to the public investigators have their own sources. they do all their legwork too. but they also pay attention to the information coming in