Planning Commission approves 55 Jordan Avenue remodel over neighbor privacy objections

The San Francisco Planning Commission voted unanimously on March 8 to approve discretionary review for a remodeling project at 55 Jordan Avenue (Case 2012.0068D), concluding a contested hearing in which a neighboring building owner raised privacy concerns.

Department staff described the project as removing the rearmost 20 feet of an existing first-floor extension and replacing it with a deck approximately 6 feet 6 inches above the rear yard, and adding a one‑story-over-raised-basement second‑story extension with a deck above. Staff noted the proposed deck would be 45 feet from the rear property line and that the adjacent apartment building’s rear wall sits 15 feet from its rear property line, creating a total 60 feet between buildings.

Neighbor Greg Leon, representing tenants in a nearby three‑story apartment building, said the second‑floor deck would intrude on tenants’ bedroom privacy and rear-yard use. Leon asked the commission to require a taller, opaque privacy screen: "I'm simply suggesting that their proposed 3 to 4 foot solid handrail add a tempered opaque glass screen above it to a total of 7 feet so they maintain their privacy," he said.

Architect Yacob Askew said the design reduces the overall massing at the rear and that the project team provided letters of support from adjacent neighbors. Askew said the proposed guardrail and reduced glazing limit sight lines from 55 Jordan into neighboring units. Property owner Taylor Walker told commissioners the owners had tried to negotiate with neighbors and disputed Leon’s characterization of the contacts: "We’ve worked very hard with the neighbors to ensure that the massing and scale ... is neighbor friendly," Walker said.

Leon used his 2‑minute rebuttal to clarify he had told the owners he would file a petition if outreach did not proceed and denied issuing an ultimatum. Commissioners discussed site visits and privacy impacts; Commissioner Moore called the alteration modest and commended the architect’s response to context and moved to approve. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote with all commissioners recorded as voting aye.

Action details: the commission declined discretionary review (i.e., did not take jurisdiction to require further discretionary changes) and approved the project as proposed. The approval is recorded as a unanimous vote; no conditions or further written amendments were recorded in the hearing transcript.

Clarifying details and evidence from the hearing: staff recorded the 45‑foot setback from the rear property line and the 60‑foot building separation; Leon described the rear yard as approximately 12 feet deep and requested a total guardrail height of about 7 feet to preserve privacy. The architect said the design shows about 115 square feet of glazing on the relevant elevation and that proposed guardrail heights would reduce visible glazing from the neighboring building.

Next steps: the approval concludes the planning commission’s discretionary-review hearing for Case 2012.0068D; any subsequent appeals or Board of Supervisors actions were not addressed in the transcript.