Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 360 Eureka addition as proposed after neighbor privacy concerns; small deck reduction attempt fails
Summary
A contested discretionary review for 360 Eureka Street resulted in the project being approved as proposed (approval by default after motion to reduce the second‑floor deck to 4 feet failed). Neighbors complained of loss of light and privacy; the sponsor made several concessions but commissioners did not impose the requested deck reduction.
The Planning Commission addressed a discretionary review for a two‑story rear addition, roof deck and other modifications at 360 Eureka Street after neighbors raised privacy and light concerns. Gabrielle Jenny and others described being seniors who would lose significant light and privacy if the proposed addition and deck were built as submitted and asked the Commission to require reductions.
The applicant’s architect, Andy Rogers, and owners described several concessions made in response to neighbor concerns: removal of a spiral stair, a 3‑foot setback on the second floor toward the neighbor to reduce direct view lines, and glass guardrails for the roof deck. Rogers said the design did not maximize the allowable envelope and that his clients had offered additional concessions (including an optional 2‑foot further deck reduction and a 1‑foot reduction in overall height) in pre‑hearing discussions.
Commissioners debated whether to require a 4‑foot second-floor deck; Commissioner Richards moved to take DR and reduce that deck to 4 feet, but the motion failed (vote recorded as Hillis Aye, Moore No, Richards Aye, President Fong Aye; recorded as failing 3–1 when considered against other procedural votes). With no successful amendment motion, commissioners noted the permit would be approved by default and an alternate motion to not take DR and approve the project as proposed failed; the end result documented in the hearing record is approval of the project as proposed (by default) with recommendations that the sponsor consider plantings or other means to soften direct view lines.
Why it matters: The case highlights neighbor tension over privacy and light in close urban lots, and shows the Commission balancing property-right expansion within code against neighborhood impacts. Commissioners encouraged additional mitigation (planting or visual screening) although they declined to impose the 4‑foot deck reduction as a formal condition.
