Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission approves three‑story infill home at 35 LeGrand despite neighbor objections

San Francisco Planning Commission · March 21, 2013
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

After neighbor testimony about loss of light, privacy and views, the Planning Commission voted 4–2 to decline discretionary review (deny the Doctor) and approve a three‑story single‑family project at 35 LeGrand Avenue; commissioners who opposed cited inadequate sensitivity to neighbors' sunlight and privacy concerns.

The Planning Commission voted 4–2 not to take up a discretionary review (a Doctor request) and to approve a proposed three‑story single‑family home at 35 LeGrand Avenue.

Neighbors filed the discretionary review arguing the new home—proposed with an upper‑floor set back and an upper terrace—would be out of scale with the predominantly two‑story neighborhood, would cast additional shadow on small rear yards, reduce sunlight in a noted sunroom, and introduce property‑line windows and balconies that intrude on privacy. Opponents presented petitions and photographs and said the project would reduce the quality of life for multiple households.

Applicant response: The applicant and architect said the project complies with the residential design guidelines, noted outreach efforts and letters of support from nearby properties, and described design steps taken to reduce bulk (setbacks on the upper floor) and to preserve street‑scale compatibility.

Commission deliberations and vote: Commissioners discussed the tension between neighbors’ privacy/light concerns and code compliance. Some commissioners suggested modest design adjustments to reduce privacy impacts, but concluded the design met code and the residential design guidelines; Commissioner Antonini moved to deny the discretionary review and approve the project. The motion passed 4–2 with Commissioners Hillis and Sugai (Sugaya) recorded as voting against the motion.

Outcome and next steps: The project was approved to proceed; staff will process permits in accordance with the approved plans.