Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbors lose challenge to 247840 Third Ave. vertical addition after planning commission review

San Francisco Planning Commission · December 1, 2011
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

Commissioners reviewed discretionary review requests from adjacent neighbors opposed to a three‑story addition at 247840 Third Avenue, heard competing testimony on privacy, views and multigenerational housing needs, and voted to approve the sponsor’s design with a 5–1 vote to not take discretionary review.

The Planning Commission considered a discretionary review for a proposed addition at 247840 Third Avenue, hearing neighborhood opposition and testimony from the project sponsor before voting to decline the discretionary review and approve the project as proposed.

Neighbors argued the vertical three‑story addition would create a 31½‑foot blank wall visible from adjacent yards, reduce daylight and privacy, and harm neighborhood character. Two neighbors formally filed discretionary reviews and presented photos and petition evidence. Patricia Morgan Ruttia and other nearby residents said they would prefer a horizontal addition that would be less visually intrusive.

The property owner, Kyle Lee, described family circumstances — a multigenerational household with elderly care needs — and stated the design had evolved after neighborhood meetings and planning‑department direction. The owner and architect said the proposed three‑story design had been developed to be compatible with the neighborhood pattern and to house a parent on the ground floor.

Staff and the Residential Design Team recommended the commission not take discretionary review and to approve the project as proposed, noting setbacks, stepbacks and site topography that reduce impacts; the RDT concluded the project did not create an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance.

Commissioners debated the tension between retaining mid‑block open space and enabling modest family expansions in compact, post‑war housing stock. After discussion, the commission voted on a motion to not take discretionary review and to approve the proposed addition; the motion passed by a 5–1 tally (recorded in the transcript). Commissioner Seguaya recorded the sole opposing vote on the motion; other commissioners supported the staff recommendation.