Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Residential Design topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board continues contested North Point Street addition to April 19 after split votes

San Francisco Board of Appeals · March 22, 2017
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

After extended testimony over privacy, mid‑block open space and a disputed fourth‑floor terrace at 2328–2330 North Point Street, the Board of Appeals failed to pass motions to alter the permit and instead voted to continue the hearing to April 19 to secure a full board.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 22 continued an appeal over a multi‑level addition at 2328–2330 North Point Street to April 19 after lengthy testimony from neighbors, the permit holder and city staff and several failed motions to condition the permit.

Neighbors, led by appellant Scott Quinn, urged the board to remove a proposed fourth‑floor terrace, reduce the depth of a rear extension and lower a proposed six‑foot fence to preserve mid‑block open space and privacy. Quinn and other residents presented photographs and two compromise options they said would reduce direct sightlines into bedrooms and minimize acoustic and light intrusions. Neighbor Ms. Mistral argued the current plan would reduce housing density and harm neighborhood character.

Permit counsel Tom Tunney and Planning Department zoning administrator Scott Sanchez told the board the project had been through discretionary review, that the planning commission had already scaled back the scope (including removal of a roof deck as recorded in the discretionary decision), and that some proposed changes could trigger conditional‑use requirements (for example, any de facto merger of units would require planning commission action). Tunney asked the board to deny the appeal and to correct a drafting error so a small Juliet balcony could remain if the board so directed.

Commissioners debated multiple options. At least two motions were made to grant the appeal with conditions—chiefly, removing the top‑floor roof deck and reducing the second‑floor deck depth to the minimum usable open‑space requirement—but each failed to reach the four votes required to alter the permit. With an absent commissioner whose participation could affect the outcome, the board instead voted to continue the matter to April 19 so the full panel could consider the case. The continuance succeeded and the hearing will resume on April 19.