Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Changes 943 Church topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors accuse developer of post-approval changes at 943 Church Street; developer and staff dispute claims
Summary
Residents told the Planning Commission that developers altered plans at 943 Church Street after hearings — adding a roof deck, enlarging a side 'bump up' and increasing an overhang — and called the changes deceptive. The project owners say inspections found no violations; staff said some alleged changes may require neighborhood notice under Section 3.11.
Neighbors from Church Street presented petitions, photos and sworn testimony to the San Francisco Planning Commission on June 7 alleging that the developer of 943 Church Street altered plans after hearings in ways that materially increased massing and shadow impacts.
Alec Bash, a neighbor and retired planner, told the commission that the site permit reviewed by the Board of Appeals did not include a roof deck and that later plan pages showing a deck and a larger rear overhang were not reviewed by planning staff. "This seems a very unjust and unfair outcome," Bash said, and submitted a petition signed by more than 60 neighbors.
Several nearby residents gave detailed accounts: Rita Hovschild said a previously announced 3-foot side setback had been built out to a much larger 17-foot-long bump-up that increased shadowing on adjacent apartments; William Duke called the conduct "completely deceptive." Neighbors asked the commission to prevent changes that would alter the massing and views they believed the commission and Board of Appeals previously considered.
Project owner Todd Mavis and partner Kevin Chang disputed the allegations, saying plans and permit sets consistently showed railings and a roof-overhang and that building department inspections found no violations. Mavis said neighbors had focused their hearing appeal on the Fourth Floor and did not previously press the other items now raised.
Planning staff (Rick Crawford and others) reviewed the claims and identified four categories of potential change: an increased stair penthouse height, a rear 4-foot overhang, roof-deck railings and glass cornices. Staff advised the commission that the increased stair penthouse and a previously unshown rear extension could require a Section 3.11 neighborhood notice if they were not part of the materials sent to neighbors during discretionary review, while railings and glass cornices—set well back from the street—were less likely to trigger notice requirements.
Next steps: staff suggested separating the specific allegations for review, confirming what plan pages were submitted at each hearing, and determining whether the changes shown on later plan pages were reviewed by staff or should prompt additional Section 3.11 notice or other corrective action.
