Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals adopts revised demolition calculations, upholds 50 Seward permit after neighbors’ challenge
Summary
After lengthy testimony from neighbors and applicants over design, setback interpretation and demolition calculations, the San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to adopt revised demolition calculations submitted at the hearing and to find the 50 Seward building permit code‑compliant, concluding the appeals with conditions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5–0 on Sept. 30 to adopt revised demolition calculations submitted at the hearing and to uphold the building permit for 50 Seward Street, ending three neighborhood appeals that challenged the project’s compliance with city design rules and demolition thresholds.
Neighbors James Pankow, Kenneth Hillen and Alisa Fitzgerald told the board the proposed expansion would break the block’s visual pattern, reduce morning sunlight and improperly avoid a conditional‑use permit by relying on altered demolition calculations. Pankow said the permit holder’s own diagrams showed at least “1 hour and 10 minutes” of new shading on his unit and that multiple demolition entries and openings had not been accounted for. Hillen argued the proposal violates Planning Code §132(b) because portions of the front setback lack direct lateral exposure to the adjacent property the code references.
Representatives for the permit holders — Kelly Friedgen and Kyle Johnson — and their architect, John Lum, replied that the project had been through multiple revisions, that demolition calculations demonstrate the work falls well below planning code demolition thresholds (citing figures presented that show ~40.6% of exterior walls and ~40% of vertical envelope elements removed, both below applicable cutoffs), and that Planning staff and the Planning Commission had twice found the addition consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines (RDG).
Planning Department Deputy Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez told the board the site’s unusual lot geometry and the RDG’s intent support the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of front‑setback averaging, and that staff had reviewed corrected demolition calculations and advised the board to adopt the revised figures for the record. Joseph Duffy, chief building inspector at the Department of Building Inspection, explained DBI’s procedures for start‑of‑work inspections, cautioned that demolition exceeding the permited scope would trigger stop‑work orders and that DBI works with Planning and DPH where needed.
After commissioners questioned applicants, appellants and department staff on square footage, demolition totals and the reasons for flipping the garage location, Commissioner Rick Swig moved to adopt the revised demolition calculations and to find the permit code‑compliant. The board recorded a unanimous vote in favor of the motion. The board’s action incorporated the corrected demolition calculations into the permit record and signaled that any future construction that exceeded the approved demolition scope would be subject to enforcement actions described by DBI.
The board did not revoke the permit. It left in place the procedural path by which the permit holder must comply with the adopted plans and any field revisions must be routed through DBI and Planning for review.
Next steps: the permit holders may proceed with permitting consistent with the adopted revisions; DBI emphasized that site inspections and any necessary revisions will be enforced during construction.
