Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flat Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission votes 4–3 to disapprove Hill Street unit merger, backs staff flat‑preservation findings
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 4–3 on July 9, 2020 to disapprove an application to legalize a unit merger and variances at 552–554 Hill Street, citing staff analysis that the proposal would create a substandard relocated unit and run contrary to flat‑preservation policy; the zoning administrator said variances for open space and exposure would be denied and the rear‑yard variance taken under advisement.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted 4–3 on July 9 to disapprove an application that sought to legalize a unit reconfiguration and related variances at 552–554 Hill Street.
Planning staff (Kathleen Campbell) recommended denying the conditional use authorization and variances, concluding that the project would merge two residential flats into a single family configuration and would result in a relocated unit that no longer met exposure and open space requirements. Staff told the commission that the merger is not necessary to create family housing, that the relocated unit would be substandard, and that the department could not find the project consistent with the general plan policies under review.
The project sponsor’s attorney, Ryan Patterson, said the internal reconfiguration had been completed around 2006 to install an ADA elevator for a retired firefighter and that a certificate of final completion (CFC) had been issued at that time. Patterson proposed a compromise: grant the applications with a recorded notice of special restrictions obligating the owner to create rear‑yard access for the downstairs unit when the property is later sold, remove a rear spiral stair, and agree not to re‑rent the downstairs unit until access is provided. Owner Bob Roddick described his disability and family history and said the elevator was necessary for his continued occupancy.
Public callers were split: Ozzie Roehm of the NOE Neighborhood Council supported staff’s recommendation to reinstate two flats and urged the commission not to permit a merger; other callers supported the homeowner’s circumstances. Commissioners debated whether the work constituted a permanent merger or a reasonable family‑based accommodation, and whether a conditional restriction tied to an individual could be legally and practically enforced. City Attorney Kate Stacy advised caution about personal, non‑land‑based conditions and noted enforcement and tracking challenges though she referenced prior cases where temporary conditions tied to family needs had been used to avoid permanent loss of units.
Commissioner Moore moved to disapprove the project; Commissioner Johnson seconded. The motion carried 4–3 (Chan, Imperial, Johnson and Moore voted to disapprove; Diamond, Fung and President Koppel voted against disapproval). After the vote, the zoning administrator said they would deny variances for open space and exposure and take the rear‑yard variance under advisement.
The commission’s action leaves the property’s violations and restoration path subject to final zoning‑administrator decisions and any enforcement or permit remedies the owner pursues.
