Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Demolition And Rebuild topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission takes discretionary review and approves 357 Cumberland with staff modifications over neighbor objections

San Francisco Planning Commission · August 27, 2020
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a lengthy hearing and robust neighborhood opposition, the Planning Commission voted 5–1 to take discretionary review and approve the proposed demolition-and-rebuild at 357 Cumberland Street with staff modifications; neighbors had sought notching and removal of a proposed roof deck and argued demolition should require conditional-use review.

The Planning Commission took discretionary review and approved a proposed demolition and rebuild at 357 Cumberland Street, despite extensive neighborhood opposition that argued the project would harm mid-block open space, reduce light for neighboring yards and create intrusive rooftop-deck impacts.

Staff presented the project as fully compliant with the Dolores Heights Special Use District controls and the residential design guidelines, noting a pre‑February 11 project filing that staff said meant conditional-use authorization for demolition was not required. DR requesters and neighborhood groups including the Dolores Heights Improvement Club urged commissioners to require a conditional‑use hearing, to deny demolition, or at minimum to require two modest changes: a 4‑by‑12‑foot notch in the rear massing and elimination of a rooftop deck.

Project counsel and the sponsor’s design team said they had extensively studied alternatives and that a renovation rather than demolition proved infeasible; they offered screening and parapet modifications to address privacy. Neighbors and district advocates countered that the project adds excessive massing and that roof decks are an established neighborhood nuisance.

Following extended public comment and deliberation the commission voted 5–1 to take discretionary review and approve the project with staff-recommended modifications (including increased parapet screening). Commissioner Moore cast the lone no vote, saying he wanted a small notch and roof-deck relocation or removal as a neighborly concession. The motion passed 5–1.

Next steps: The project proceeds with the staff modifications identified by the commission; because the commission took discretionary review, additional findings and conditions will be recorded in the permit file.