Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Continues Dispute Over 791–793 Second Ave. Addition to Jan. 11 After Neighbor‑Permit Holder Talks Urged
Summary
Neighbors appealed a permit for a 12‑foot two‑story rear extension at 791–793 Second Ave., arguing it would block light and views; the board encouraged parties to negotiate and continued the case to Jan. 11 to permit submission of compromise plans.
Neighbors and the permit holder for a proposed rear addition at 791–793 Second Avenue presented competing views at the Board of Appeals on Dec. 7 before the board continued the case to Jan. 11 to allow further negotiation and condition‑setting.
Jordan Quan and co‑owner John L. Kwan said the proposed two‑story, 12‑foot extension with a roof deck would be built immediately on the south property line and block natural light to their kitchen window. Quan said he did not receive neighborhood notification in a timely way and asked the board to require a 5‑foot setback. “I really do not see that much backyard space at all on the property once they extend 12 feet,” he said.
Permit holder Michael (Mike) Cabarrubia, represented by counsel and architect Bill Pashlinski, said the project was designed to conform with San Francisco codes and guidelines; he described outreach to neighbors and offered alternatives such as removing a 3‑ft deck on the north side to create a setback on the south. Planning Department senior planner Scott Sanchez said the application underwent Section 3.11 neighborhood notification and revised plans reduced the encroachment. Sanchez explained the rear‑yard averaging method allows some additions to extend farther into the rear yard while remaining code‑compliant.
Commissioners and staff raised an additional technical issue: an existing exterior stair that appears to run to the property line and may function as a second means of egress; if built or rebuilt to current code, the stair would require firewalling that would itself block light. Several commissioners suggested a top‑floor setback (3 feet on the top floor) as a compromise to preserve light while allowing most of the proposed addition.
Given competing positions and the possibility of a negotiated settlement, Commissioner Fung moved to continue the matter to Jan. 11, 2012, and requested the parties meet and submit drawings documenting any agreement. The motion passed 4–0. The board encouraged the permit holder to provide conditioned drawings reflecting any negotiated setback so the permit can proceed on a clear path after the continuance.
