Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rear Yard Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Cole Street permit for subterranean rear addition despite neighbors’ tree and notice concerns
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to uphold an alteration permit for a primarily below‑grade addition at 1532 Cole Street after neighbors and an arborist raised concerns about notice, code interpretation, and potential damage to a Monterey cypress; planning staff defended the interpretation of Section 136.C.26.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 18 upheld a Department of Building Inspection permit for an alteration at 1532 Cole Street, rejecting an appeal filed by a neighbor who cited lack of notice and potential harm to a large Monterey cypress and other rear‑yard trees.
Appellant David Palatnik said he and neighbors lacked the required 30‑day notice and that the project — described in public filings as a garage‑type structure but used as an office/studio — should not have been processed without public review. "The proposed project is about 640 square feet," Palatnik said, adding that the sudden timing left neighbors without time to review engineering and soil reports. He and his architect, Jace Levinson, argued that the planning code sections cited in staff approvals (Sections 134 and 136) were interpreted to allow vehicular garage uses and that applying the garage provision to habitable space stretches the code's intent.
Arborist Larry Costello testified that excavations would overlap critical root zones and that two trees would likely suffer very high impact from the proposed excavation. "There's going to be a very high impact on two of the trees," Costello said.
Permit holders, including architect Anne Feucheron and structural engineer Rodrigo Santos, said the project is primarily below grade, conforms to the planning department’s longstanding interpretation of Sec. 136.C.26 for sloped lots, and includes a vegetated roof. Santos and the permit holder’s arborist said they would engage on‑site arborists during excavation and monitoring procedures; Santos also described soil conditions and said the top ~21 inches is plantable soil with bedrock below.
Planning staff reiterated that the project falls within a permitted rear‑yard obstruction (Sec. 136.C.26) because it is primarily below grade and no written interpretation is necessary for the administrative approval given previous practice. DBI confirmed the site permit was issued on Oct. 22 and that the addenda package was under partial review but that no work had begun.
After questioning and reviewing the competing arborist claims, the board voted 5–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that Planning Department’s height determination was accurate and the structure is code compliant. Commissioners noted the absence of a clear city standard for rear‑yard trees and encouraged neighbors to pursue civil remedies if private law issues arise.
