Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies new property-line windows at 240 Chenery, approves opaque treatment for a third window (4–1)
Summary
After extensive public testimony from neighbors who said the project reduced privacy and altered neighborhood scale, the Planning Commission voted 4–1 to disapprove newly proposed property-line media-room windows at 240 Chenery and accepted the sponsor’s offer to make one rear window opaque and contribute funds for screening.
The San Francisco Planning Commission on Oct. 3 voted 4–1 to disallow newly proposed property-line windows on a recently constructed addition at 240 Chenery Street, while accepting the project sponsor’s offered compromise to make one rear-facing window opaque and contribute to screening.
The item came to the commission as a public-initiated discretionary review after neighbors raised privacy, sunlight and process concerns. Requester David Wang (238 Chenery) said the developer’s project had expanded a modest house into a much larger structure (he cited an increase from about 1,200 to roughly 7,000 square feet), described a series of alleged construction impacts to adjacent properties and argued the newly cut openings substantially eroded neighbors’ privacy. Several neighbors and long-term residents testified about lost sunlight, “monster-house” scale, and unexpected windows that now look into private yards and bathrooms.
Justin Zucker, counsel for the project sponsor, said the project had prior approvals and that the current request involved adding two fire‑rated, raised windows to a media room to capture daylight; he offered to make the previously approved rear window opaque, to change one window orientation, and to contribute $2,000 toward vegetation or planters for screening. Zucker said the proposed windows start about 54 inches off the floor and are non‑operable, and the sponsor offered benches and vegetation to reduce sightlines.
Commissioner Richards moved to disapprove the media-room property-line windows and accept the sponsor’s opaque‑window concession for the rear opening. The motion was seconded and passed 4–1, with Commissioner Fung the lone dissenting vote. Commissioners cited neighborhood privacy concerns and that the proposed additional openings were unnecessary given existing daylighting opportunities shown on sponsor drawings.
The commission’s action removes the new property-line windows from the approved building envelope while allowing the opaque treatment offered for one rear window and requiring the sponsor to pursue the screening concession. Several speakers noted ongoing investigations by the Department of Building Inspection related to construction conduct; the commission’s decision addressed only the discretionary window additions, not the underlying enforcement matters.
