Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders permit modifications to preserve neighbors’ light: 436 Eureka expansion approved with conditions
Summary
After neighbors and tenants warned that a rear expansion would block daylight to several bedrooms, the Board granted an appeal and required the permit holder to adopt revised plans that increase a side setback, remove parapets and otherwise mitigate impacts to the light well; vote passed 4–0.
Neighbors and tenants of 432–436 Eureka Street told the Board that the approved rear expansion at 436 Eureka would block afternoon sunlight to bedroom windows in a shared light well and leave residents with dark, unhealthy living spaces. Appellant Susie Chen, who lives next door, argued the project omitted required 3.11 neighborhood notification and did not disclose two bedroom windows on the plans, which she said concealed the expansion’s full effect.
The permit holder’s counsel acknowledged omissions in the original submission and presented revised plans (Exhibit 9) that the permit holder said now show all windows and include concessions: removal of parapets, sloping the roof, and a 3–4 foot setback (notch) adjacent to the neighbors’ light well. Neighbors and tenants, including tenants who said they would lose direct sunlight to bedrooms and workspaces, urged stronger mitigation and asked the Board to require a practical solution.
Planning staff said the department stands behind its review, noted the drawings show the light well on multiple sheets, and supported the revised compromise of a 3–4 foot notch as a reasonable mitigation. The permit holder supplied a shadow study showing minimal changes across different setbacks; neighbors disputed the conclusions and asked for a short technical negotiation between the parties.
Commissioner Jose Lopez moved to grant the appeal and require adoption of the permit holder’s modified plan set (Exhibit 9) as a condition of issuance; the Board voted 4–0 to approve the permit on that condition. The Board also directed staff to assist with the process for special conditions and required submittal of revised stamped plans to the Clerk.
