Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 40320 Eighth Street CUA topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues case on 40320 Eighth Street after debate over demolition and adding a second unit
Summary
The commission continued consideration of a conditional use authorization for 40320 Eighth Street to allow staff and the sponsor to develop options for a second unit/ADU after public allegations of an illegal demolition and questions about demolition calculations; the continuance was set for April 1, 2021.
The Planning Commission continued a conditional‑use authorization for 40320 Eighth Street on March 18, 2021, after hearing staff and project sponsor presentations and a string of public objections alleging illegal demolition.
Planning Department staff (Linda Ajello Hoagland) told the commission the project was approved in 2018 and that construction later “exceeded the demolition thresholds outlined in planning code 3.17,” prompting an enforcement case with the Department of Building Inspection (DBI). Staff recommended approval with conditions and said the project’s size, design and features remain as originally approved.
Architect Andy Rogers, representing the sponsor, said the project team discovered structural deterioration during construction and that some work exceeded the approved scope. Rogers said the contractor and he made mistakes in demolition calculations, apologized and produced revised demolition calculations and support letters from immediate neighbors.
Neighbors and advocates urged the commission to withhold approval, saying the original house was demolished and that approving a larger replacement house would reward illegal behavior. ‘‘If the planning commission rewards the project sponsors with a larger house, the planning commission will be sending a clear message that illegal demolitions are no longer illegal,’’ said Jerry Drouetler of the San Francisco Land Use Coalition during public comment.
Commissioners examined enforcement practices and whether the project sponsor should be required to add a second unit or an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to offset the enlargement. Staff and the director of current planning (Liz Waddy) said DBI now does pre‑site inspections on projects with vertical additions and that the department is issuing disclosure letters to architects and homeowners on demolition thresholds.
Commissioner Diamond moved and the commission unanimously continued the matter to April 1, 2021, directing staff and the sponsor to prepare options (including a potential second unit/ADU) for return to the commission. The project sponsor’s architect said revised plans could be ready sooner than May and expressed willingness to sketch ADU options to align the project with RH‑2 zoning and the commission’s housing‑creation goals.
Next steps: Staff and the sponsor will develop and present ADU/second‑unit options and additional documentation for the commission’s April 1 hearing.
