Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 312 Green Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds 312 Green Street site permit after extended disputes over demolition vs. alteration
Summary
The Board denied appeals alleging the 312 Green Street site permit was a disguised demolition and that structural work would de facto demolish the house. DBI and Planning staff said the project is a site permit (alteration) and missing application items will be remedied during DBI plan‑check/addenda; the Board upheld the permit.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 27 denied an appeal challenging an alteration/site permit for 312 Green Street, concluding the permit was properly issued as an alteration rather than demolition. Appellants argued the project (a 3rd/4th‑story addition and roof deck) would require demolition because the existing framing and studs are insufficient to support the new loads and because the permit application left key structural information blank.
Permit holders Bruno and Suzanne (project sponsors) and consulting architects and contractors presented structural plans and letters from engineers and contractors saying the majority of existing framing will remain, be reinforced, and that standard techniques (sistering, added shear walls, localized foundation work) make the work feasible without a demolition permit. DBI and Planning staff said the site permit process anticipates structural plan‑check and addenda, and that 3.17/demolition thresholds were not triggered on the record as submitted; DBI noted some application boxes needed correction and that those can be addressed in the addendum and plan‑check.
The Board heard extensive expert testimony on both sides about constructability and fire‑rating practices. After rebuttals and departmental input, the Board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the permit, noting the site‑permit/addendum/plan‑check process gives DBI the tools to confirm structural compliance during plan review and construction inspections.
Why it matters: The decision affirms the enforcement process for conversion/addition projects where substantial structural work may follow an entitlement; it underscores DBI’s role in verifying structural compliance during plan‑check and pre‑construction meetings.
