Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Addition 25 Toledo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Marina addition at 25 Toledo Way despite neighbors' shadow concerns
Summary
The San Francisco Planning Commission on May 27 approved a revised addition at 25 Toledo Way that adds a second unit and a narrow fourth floor after staff findings that the change is consistent with preservation criteria; neighbors urged removal of the fourth floor citing shadow and privacy impacts to rent‑controlled units, but commissioners voted 7‑0 to approve as modified.
The San Francisco Planning Commission approved a modified addition at 25 Toledo Way on May 27, allowing the property owner to add a second residential unit and an upper‑level addition after staff concluded the design is compatible with the streetfront and preservation guidelines.
Neighbors and their counsel told the commission the project would cast significant late‑afternoon shadows on adjacent yards and would set an undesirable precedent for overscaled infill in the Marina. Deborah Holly, speaking for adjacent resident Joe Brand, said the project would shade a housebound neighbor’s west‑facing windows “from about 3 to 5 p.m.” and asked the commission to eliminate the proposed fourth floor. Ben Rubin, owner of 1 Toledo Way, said tenants in 16 rent‑controlled apartments would face reduced sunlight and compromised privacy.
Planning Department staff and the project architect presented shadow studies and preservation reviews that reached a different conclusion. Staff architect David Winslow said the reduced rear wall and fourth‑story setbacks keep the addition minimally visible from the street and that the project meets preservation criteria. Architect Jonathan Perlman told commissioners that detailed shadow diagrams in the record show only “minor” additional shadowing for most adjacent properties and that setbacks, translucent glazing and a proposed planter would mitigate privacy impacts.
Commissioners questioned the sponsor on the scale of the upper unit and on parity between the main unit and the accessory dwelling. The architect said the upper unit’s gross area is roughly 3,700 square feet (usable ~3,300–3,400) while the proposed ground‑floor accessory unit is about 890 square feet. Commissioner Tanner and others asked whether a larger second unit would better serve city housing goals; staff said no city policy currently requires parity between units.
After deliberation, the commission adopted staff recommendations and voted to approve the project as modified, effectively declining to grant the discretionary‑review standard and allowing the revised addition to proceed. The decision was unanimous, 7‑0. The commission noted that the addition is behind the historic mansard roof, that preservation staff found minimal visual impact to the public right of way, and that the submitted shadow analyses informed their finding that impacts were not “exceptional and extraordinary.”
The project will proceed to building‑permit review with conditions and any required plan‑check steps. The Commission’s action represents the final planning decision recorded at the hearing; opponents may pursue follow‑on administrative or legal remedies if they choose.
