Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board continues appeal over ADUs at 330 Presidio Avenue pending site visit and structural review

San Francisco Board of Appeals · March 21, 2018
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

Appellant raised leasehold, structural and building-envelope concerns about two ADUs at 330 Presidio; planning and DBI said the permit met code but both departments and commissioners agreed a site visit and further structural review were needed. Matter continued to April 25.

The Board of Appeals on March 21 continued an appeal of an ADU permit for 330 Presidio Avenue after appellant John Paxton raised legal and structural objections and department staff urged verification of existing conditions.

Paxton told the board the project would "wrongly take" tenant storage and garage space, potentially violating tenant protections in the Rent Ordinance, and argued the proposed work could weaken shear walls installed under a prior soft-story retrofit. "The plans for the ADU called for installation of windows and doors in the middle of two of the shear walls, changes which would substantially weaken the wall's ability to resist seismic forces," Paxton said.

Permit counsel and the owner said revised plans would relocate storage and preserve housing services; they pointed to a regulatory agreement limiting the ADUs to long-term rent-controlled occupancy. Planning staff said the ADU application had been reviewed by the department’s ADU/flex team and received required zoning waivers; DBI staff and an independent structural engineer who spoke during public comment urged the board to allow a site visit and additional structural review because certain structural (s-sheet) documentation was not in the packet before the board.

Given competing representations and unresolved questions about whether the proposed work involves infill under a cantilever or an expansion of the building envelope, commissioners voted to continue the matter to April 25 to permit department site verification and further review.