Planning commission approves discretionary review for 254 Roosevelt Way with privacy, setback and roof‑deck conditions

The San Francisco Planning Commission on May 14 approved a discretionary review for a three‑story horizontal addition at 254 Roosevelt Way, voting unanimously to adopt staff‑recommended modifications after extended public comment and commissioner questions.

The project, which expands an existing three‑story over‑basement building from about 2,430 square feet to roughly 5,360 square feet and adds a one‑car garage and a front roof deck, prompted neighbors to press for changes to protect light, air and privacy. Kate McGee, planning consultant representing DR requester Phyllis Dilkenshamun, said the proposal "blocks light and air to side windows" and that the proposed third‑floor roof deck "does present impacts to privacy to adjacent properties." McGee asked the commission to require a four‑foot side setback, reduce or eliminate the roof deck and add a condition to "ensure that the current tenants are protected in the future." (Speaker identified as DR requester representation.)

Andrew Pellman and Mark Kerr, who live next door, told the commission they supported redevelopment "but not at the expense of our three rent‑controlled homes," and said the sponsor's privacy studies were not included in the packet. They argued the large roof deck would allow close‑up views into bedrooms and living rooms from 12 feet away.

Project architect Neeraj Bhatia and the sponsor said the project is a horizontal addition, not demolition, and that all units are rent‑controlled and currently occupied. Bhatia described revisions including rotating and significantly shrinking the roof deck, adding planters and setbacks, and said the sponsor seeks to "age in place" with an elevator; he told the commission "there's no plan to evict the tenants," and that tenants had been informed about the project.

Staff architect David Winslow recommended taking the DR and memorializing several modifications, including changes to the roof deck geometry and the relocation of an egress door intended to reduce light‑well impacts. Winslow also flagged one item—questions about the second‑floor small balcony and whether it should be treated as a non‑occupiable roof—that he did not include in the initial recommendation but said could be added if the commission requested it.

Commissioners debated whether the second‑floor balcony should be converted to an unoccupied roof and whether the front portion of the third‑floor deck should be designated non‑occupiable to prevent future over‑the‑counter additions. Commissioner Diamond moved to take DR and approve the project with the staff modifications; the motion carried on a 6–0 vote with Commissioners Fung, Imperial, Johnson, Moore, Diamond and President Koppel voting aye.

The commission instructed staff to ensure the recommended modifications are reflected in permit drawings, including the deck rotation and setbacks that staff described as reducing the deck to about one‑third of the originally approved size. The record shows neighbors requested explicit tenant‑protection language and a four‑foot side setback; staff advised those revisions where they were consistent with the recommended modifications. The commission’s action memorializes the changes and authorizes staff to incorporate them into the permit and final conditions.

The matter concluded with the project approved according to the staff‑recommended modifications and the commission noting remaining design details would be finalized in permit drawings and conditions.