Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves modifications for 804/820 Second St., orders 5‑ft pullback
Summary
After public dispute over light, air and lot coverage, the commission approved the discretionary-review project at 804/820 Second Street contingent on pulling the rear footprint back five feet and adding screening/similar mitigation; action passed unanimously.
The Planning Commission approved a discretionary-review application for additions at 804/820 Second Street in the Dogpatch after directing a change to reduce rear lot‑line impacts.
Staff architect David Winslow told the commission the project would add a rear horizontal addition and upper-level vertical additions and that the project had received both letters of support and a Doctor request from an adjacent neighbor alleging significant light, air and privacy impacts. Winslow said Urban Design recommended mirroring a neighbor’s light well and adding screening fences to protect privacy.
Annette Carrier, the Doctor requester and long‑time Dogpatch resident, argued the proposed additions would "box in" her light well and create unreasonable impacts on bedrooms and a tenant’s bathroom. Her consultant produced diagrams showing extensive private roof decks and a parapet that the requester said would create both noise and direct sightlines into living spaces.
Project sponsors and their architect disputed the claim that the light well would be blocked and said they had offered privacy screening and revisions; sponsors noted numerous letters of support and multiple design revisions during a two‑year review. Project counsel and neighbors debated whether the lot‑line roof deck and 100% ground‑floor lot coverage were consistent with neighborhood standards.
Several commissioners expressed concern about full ground‑floor lot coverage and the size of proposed roof decks but recognized staff’s recommended mitigation. Commissioner Moore moved to take discretionary review and approve the project with a five‑foot reduction in the rear footprint and design details (a mirrored light‑well cut and privacy screening), a condition that staff said would also require Historic Preservation Commission review of exterior changes. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The commission noted the condition will be relayed to the Historic Preservation Commission where appropriate.
