Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Discretionary Review topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission continues 1110 Ashbury discretionary review to May 1 after plan-submittal concerns

San Francisco Planning Commission · April 3, 2014
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Commission continued the discretionary review of a four-story addition at 1110 Ashbury Street to May 1 after commissioners and neighbors raised concerns about missing scales, dimensions and shadow analysis in materials; applicant's architect agreed to provide corrected plans.

The Planning Commission voted to continue the discretionary review for an addition at 1110 Ashbury Street to the May 1 hearing after commissioners and neighbors raised process and plan-submission concerns.

Jessica Look of the Planning Department described the proposal to expand a two-story residence with a horizontal and vertical addition that would create a four-bedroom, four-story house. The department recommended approval on the merits, noting exceptional circumstances because the existing building is noncompliant in the rear yard and the proposed design complies with residential-design guidelines.

Neighbors and requesting parties said the plans provided with the packet lacked essential details — including consistent scales, dimensions and a site plan showing adjacent-property context — which hindered fair review. Commissioner Moore emphasized that commissioners must receive clear, comparable plans and said electronic files initially submitted were not viewable or printable in a convenient format; he asked for consistent submittal standards.

Neighbor Suci presented photos and a shadow study showing that, as proposed, the fourth-story addition would eliminate several hours of direct sunlight to rear-facing windows and would create new privacy impacts. The applicant's architect, who attends the hearing, apologized for omissions and committed to provide corrected drawings that include dimensions and context. The commission voted to continue the item to May 1 to allow time for full submittal and review; the motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Hillis recorded as voting against.

Next steps: Applicant to provide corrected plans, including dimensions, scaled drawings and complete shadow studies; matter to return to the commission on May 1.