Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves demolition and replacement at 159 Laidley Street
Summary
The commission unanimously approved a conditional use authorization to demolish a deteriorated single-family home at 159 Laidley Street and replace it with a contextual single-family residence; staff cited structural issues, nonhistoric status and site soil conditions as primary reasons for recommending demolition.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted unanimously 7-0 to approve a conditional use authorization (CUA) for demolition of an existing circa-1909 single-family dwelling at 159 Laidley Street and the construction of a new single-family house with parking and a partially habitable basement.
Planning staff (Jeff Warren/Jeff Horn) told commissioners the existing building is not a historic resource and that three site-specific conditions favor demolition rather than a partial remodel: widespread, amateur repairs compromising structure; the house is skewed and encroaches on property lines; and underlying unconsolidated fill makes accessing and repairing foundations unsafe. Staff noted the project complies with Planning Code Sections 303 and 317, provided the revised findings in Planning Code Section 101.1B, and recommended approval with conditions.
Project sponsor Jeff Gibson described the home as ‘‘a mess’’ with structural compromises, encroachments and unsafe soils that would make a remodel technically infeasible and potentially hazardous during construction. Gibson said the replacement is intended as a family house (approximately 3,300 square feet habitable, four bedrooms) rather than a speculative development. Commissioners asked whether an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) could be included; Gibson and staff said the downslope lot configuration, narrow frontage and parking/garage stacker made a true ADU impractical, though a flexible guest space was included.
Commissioners praised the clarity of the sponsor’s presentation and the project’s contextual design; several noted that gross floor-area numbers include non-habitable garage and storage space and that habitable area is smaller than the headline figure suggests. With no speaker opposition at the hearing and one supporting comment from an adjacent neighbor, commissioners moved to approve the CUA with the conditions and revised findings read into the record. The motion passed 7-0.
The approval places the project on the commission’s discretionary review calendar and does not itself issue building permits; the sponsor must still secure Department of Building Inspection permits before demolition or construction begins.
