Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Character topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission takes discretionary review and orders reduced roof-deck design for 33 Capra Way
Summary
After extensive neighbor testimony, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to take discretionary review and to require a reduced rooftop deck design (with added setbacks and plantings) for a proposed conversion at 33 Capra Way; commissioners encouraged removal of a penthouse stair structure if permitted by the building department.
The Planning Commission voted Thursday to take discretionary review and require revisions to the roof deck for a proposed multi-unit conversion at 33 Capra Way, following lengthy public comment that split the neighborhood.
Staff said the project converts a single-family dwelling into three units with a horizontal rear addition and a two‑story vertical addition; the lot is a contributor to the Marina Corporation residential historic district, staff said. Two Doctor requesters and several neighbors urged the commission to preserve the historic façade, add greater fourth‑floor setbacks and remove a proposed roof deck that they said would intrude on mid-block open space and privacy.
Josh Callahan, a neighbor and one of the Doctor requesters, described the proposal as “maximalist” and urged eliminating the fourth‑floor roof deck and adding a meaningful setback. Maurice Franco, another requester, asked the commission to preserve the shared light well and limit height and bulk. Supporters of the project — including housing advocates and many nearby residents — said the project adds family-sized units and that the design had been revised multiple times to respond to comments.
Project architects responded by showing a revised roof-deck plan that centers the deck, adds living‑roof planters and sets the deck back three feet from the yard edges to reduce overlook. The sponsor also offered to explore removing a stair penthouse if the Department of Building Inspection allows it; staff said that modification may be feasible but is conditional on DBI code interpretation.
Commissioner Hillis and others signaled conditional support if the roof deck is reconfigured as presented; Commissioner Fung moved that the commission take the DR, require the reduced roof-deck configuration with plantings shown by the sponsor, and encourage the sponsor to pursue elimination of the stair penthouse to reduce bulk. The motion passed unanimously, 5–0.
The action requires the sponsor to submit the altered deck drawings and indicates the commission’s interest in a reduced massing at the top of the building.
