Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funston Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves revised Funston Avenue addition after protracted debate and structural objections
Summary
After a lengthy hearing with neighbors and engineers raising structural and light‑and‑privacy concerns, the Planning Commission voted 5–2 to approve the discretionary review for 1911 Funston Avenue with staff‑recommended setbacks and an additional requirement to reduce the lower‑level office projection by five feet.
The Planning Commission voted Thursday to take discretionary review and approve a revised addition at 1911 Funston Avenue after more than two hours of testimony and technical exchange over massing, mid‑block open‑space intrusion, and shared foundation concerns.
Planning staff summarized revisions the project sponsor made since the March hearing, including reductions to lower levels, added side setbacks and removal of a solarium on the lowest floor. Staff recommended approval with conditions that include additional side setbacks, a peer structural and soils review panel to be overseen by the Department of Building Inspection, and refinements to massing. Sophie Middlebrook (Planning staff) described those modifications and recommended the commission approve the revised plans with conditions.
Neighbors opposed to the application presented detailed massing visuals and structural testimony. A neighbor‑retained structural engineer, James Tsao, told the commission that the subject properties share concrete piers and that excavation and retaining features in the revised proposal could undermine pier capacity without substantive changes to the foundation/retaining design. Neighbors said revised massing documents arrived late and argued the sponsor had not adequately addressed north‑side impacts on a longtime neighbor (Mildred Yamaguchi).
Project architects and sponsors said they had made significant reductions to the footprint, removed an earlier podium and tall retaining wall, and had prepared a massing study. They argued that setbacks, green roofs and other refinements reduced the project’s visual and shading impacts and that structural issues should be resolved in construction documents and DBI review.
Commissioners were split on whether to continue the item for more design work. Commissioner Seguaya moved to approve the discretionary review with staff's recommended modifications and an additional change: cutting back the lower‑level office projection by five feet (the architect said that revision was feasible and staff could work to reconcile upper‑floor changes). After debate the motion passed 5–2, with Commissioners Moore and Olague voting against.
The commission recorded that the approval includes the staff‑recommended side setbacks, a required DBI peer review of structural/soil stability during permit processing, and the specific reduction of a lower‑level projection to reduce mid‑block openness impacts. Several neighbors said they would continue to watch DBI review and may pursue appeals if structural concerns persist.
