Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds zoning administrator on 310 Duncan enforcement; owner may seek conditional use or restore unit size
Summary
The board denied appeals from the owner of 310 Duncan Street contesting DBI/Planning notices alleging an unlawful reduction or merger of a second rent‑controlled unit; the board found sufficient evidence (Sanborn maps, assessor records and prior photographs) to uphold the enforcement action and outlined remedial options.
At the Aug. 23 meeting the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied two appeals that challenged Department of Building Inspection and Zoning Administrator enforcement actions at 310 Duncan Street.
Background: Owner John Kaufman purchased the property following unclear historical records. A 3R report filed with city records listed the unit count as "unknown," and the owner said he was counseled by planning staff that he could proceed either way. After the owner obtained a building permit and completed work, planning and DBI enforcement staff uncovered listing photos, Sanborn fire insurance maps and assessor records indicating historic two‑unit use and concluded the owner had effectively merged a rent‑controlled second unit or reduced it by more than 25% without conditional use authorization.
Arguments: The permit holder and architect said their review of available records and conversations with planning left uncertainty about legal unit count; they said they relied on staff guidance and that earlier permits or microfiche suggested a mixed history. Planning and DBI presented Sanborn map evidence, assessor records and listing photographs that they said showed two separate flats historically and argued the permit submissions did not accurately reflect existing conditions.
Board action: After extended testimony and departmental briefing, the board found the Zoning Administrator did not err or abuse discretion in issuing the suspension and notice of violation. The board denied the appeals and left available remedies: the owner may apply for conditional use authorization to lawfully merge or alter unit counts, or the owner can revise the work to restore the second unit’s size so it is not reduced by more than 25% of its prior size (which would eliminate the merger trigger under the Planning Code).
Representative quotes: "The 3R report says unknown as to the number of units...the planner agreed that the record was unclear and informed him that he could proceed with the project as 1 unit or 2," the owner said describing planning guidance.
"We subsequently found photographs that show it appears that these would actually be two full‑floor flats...our investigation found evidence supporting a two‑unit historic use," Planning Department representative Scott Sanchez said.
What comes next: If the owner wishes to retain the current configuration without additional approvals, he must pursue conditional use authorization from the Planning Commission; alternatively, he may restore the second unit's size so the reduction is not greater than 25%. DBI enforcement remains available until the matter is resolved.
