Neighbors oppose rooftop ‘Airstream’ at 2303 Filbert; commission continues review to March 12
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A discretionary review of a proposed rooftop amenity built around a prefabricated Airstream trailer drew hundreds of neighborhood objections over glare, light‑well shading, noise and precedent; the commission continued the item to March 12 to allow sponsor‑neighborhood discussions and design revisions.
A contentious discretionary review at 2303 Filbert Street dominated the Feb. 12 meeting as staff, neighbors and the sponsor debated a revised rooftop design that replaces a previously permitted greenhouse with a prefabricated Airstream trailer, spiral stair, catwalk and associated deck features.
Staff architect David Winslow explained that the Airstream‑based design differs materially from the previously permitted glass greenhouse and raised residential design‑guideline questions about materials, visibility and privacy. Dozens of neighbors and neighborhood associations submitted letters and testified in opposition, citing potential glare from polished metal, reflection hazards for nearby drivers, shading and light‑well impacts to adjacent bedrooms and bathrooms, noise from a new elevated entertainment area, safety and seismic concerns, and a precedent risk for rooftop trailers.
The project sponsor and design‑build team (Corey Covington, House Works) said the Airstream would be smaller than the prior greenhouse (approximately 128 sq ft versus a 221 sq ft permitted greenhouse), removable, and would be fitted with a satin finish (to reduce reflectivity) and a glass/shroud system around the light well to mitigate noise. During the hearing the sponsor offered additional concessions—omitting the sauna and outdoor shower, applying a satin finish to reduce reflectivity and studying ways to minimize rooftop mechanical penthouses and stair penthouses.
Commissioners expressed concern about materiality, visibility and process; several urged more robust neighborhood outreach. Planning staff recommended either screening the trailer in a material compatible with the neighborhood or removing the viewing platform and stairs. After extended public testimony and deliberation the commission voted 5–2 to continue the matter to March 12 to allow the sponsor to develop revisions and engage neighbors; Commissioners Williams and Imperial voted against the continuance (preferring denial or firmer restrictions).