Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves revised 653 20th/Eighth Street project with ADU condition after split vote
Summary
After lengthy debate over massing, rooftop decks and a novel ADU strategy, the Planning Commission voted 5–2 to take discretionary review and approve a revised two‑unit project at 653 20th (Eighth Street) with conditions requiring ADU permit filing and completion within six months or return to the commission.
The Planning Commission voted 5–2 to take discretionary review and approve a revised proposal at 653 20th Street (Eighth Street) that would replace an existing two‑story single‑family dwelling with a three‑story over basement building containing a primary unit and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Staff told the commission the sponsor substantially revised the project after earlier feedback: the height was reduced by 2 feet 3 inches, the third floor was set back 15 feet from the front facade, decking was reduced by roughly 38 percent, and the total square footage dropped from about 4,149 to 3,990 square feet. Staff recommended approval with a condition requiring the ADU permit to be filed and completed within six months of the certificate of final completion (CFC) or else the matter return for mandatory discretionary review.
Neighbors and Doctor requesters objected to remaining massing, rooftop deck, shadowing of light wells and changes to the mid‑block open space pattern. They requested further reductions in rear yard build‑out and elimination of the roof deck. The project sponsor and several commissioners argued the revised design implemented the commission’s prior direction and provided a reasonable two‑unit solution; staff and ADU program staff explained recent code changes (Planning Code §207(c)(6)) allow expanded ADU opportunities in single‑family houses and described the two‑step permitting and enforcement approach staff would use.
After extended deliberation about whether the proposal was still too large and whether the staged ADU permit could be enforced, the motion to take discretionary review and approve with staff conditions carried 5–2 (Commissioners Melgar and Moore dissenting). The conditions require filing and completion of ADU permits within a staff‑specified window or trigger a return to commission for enforcement. The decision was notable because it tested the city's new ADU provisions in an RH‑1 context and generated discussion about how to balance additional housing with neighborhood massing and privacy concerns.
Next steps: the sponsor will proceed with building permits subject to staff conditions; if ADU permits are not filed/completed within the required window, the project will be subject to further review.
