Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 2758 Filbert topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves Filbert Street addition after heated debate; neighbors had sought more concessions
Summary
After extensive public comment and four doctor requests, the Planning Commission approved a discretionary review for 2758 Filbert with staff modifications by a 4–1 vote; opponents argued the project is too large, risks compromising mid‑block open space and may be tantamount to demolition under Section 317.
Get email alerts on the 2758 Filbert topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Commission approved a discretionary review application for 2758 Filbert Street by a 4–1 vote after lengthy testimony from neighbors and project proponents.
Staff architect David Winslow described the proposal as a multi‑story vertical and horizontal addition and a one‑story rear pop‑out totaling roughly 5,855 square feet. Neighbors and four doctor requesters raised several concerns: alleged failure to follow Residential Design Advisory Team (RDAT) recommendations, noncompliance with Calhollow design guidelines (notably rear‑yard averaging and side/rear setbacks), an increase in gross floor area that would be out of scale with the block, and questions about whether the work constitutes demolition under Planning Code Section 317. Petitioning neighbors urged the commission to require the sponsor to reduce the rear extension by roughly 3 feet on multiple floors to preserve light and air to adjacent units and to protect the mid‑block communal open space (Kauhala playground).
Project sponsor Bill Higgins and architect Jeff Gibson said the structure needs renovation and outlined a set of concessions negotiated with staff, including notches and other reductions to lessen impacts. They presented shadow analyses and other studies staff requested. Staff recommended approval with modifications that incorporated several of the sponsor’s concessions and additional conditions to address neighbors’ concerns.
Commission debate was divided. Commissioners Koppel, Hillis and Copple supported staff recommendations, saying the plans were revised substantially in response to RDAT and neighbor input; Commissioner Moore dissented, arguing the project remained too large and urged further negotiation to better protect the mid‑block open space and adjacent lot‑line windows. The motion to approve carried 4–1.
