Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Planning Permit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds Planning-approved rear extension at 1430 Sixth Ave

San Francisco Board of Appeals · September 28, 2016
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

The Board denied neighbors' appeal and upheld a Planning Commission–approved permit for a 17.5-foot rear extension at 1430 Sixth Ave, finding the project code-compliant; the motion passed 4–0 after testimony from neighbors and planning staff.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 28 denied an appeal of a Planning Department–approved permit for a sizeable rear extension at 1430 Sixth Avenue, concluding the project complies with zoning and design rules.

Neighbor Anne Grimaldi urged the board to deny the permit or impose conditions, saying the proposed 17.5-foot extension and ground-floor plan contained "indicators" of a potential illegal unit and would increase the house from roughly 1,250 to more than 3,000 square feet. She asked the board to require three modifications: remove the full downstairs bathroom, open the visual connection between floors, and shorten the extension by 6.5 feet.

Planning Department zoning administrator Scott Sanchez and attorney David Silverman, representing the permit holder, told the board the proposal complies with the rooms-down matrix and residential design guidelines and that the Planning Commission had unanimously approved the project with a notice of special restrictions reinforcing single-family use. "The project is built as of right. There are no variances," Silverman said.

After questioning and discussion about indicators and whether additional restrictions would be effective, President Daryl Honda moved to deny the appeal and issue the permit on the basis that the project is code-compliant. The motion carried 4–0.

The permit remains in effect; planning staff noted the notice of special restrictions will be recorded on the property title to document single-family use.