Board of Appeals upholds revision permit for 10 Lundy’s Lane, denies jurisdiction request

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 3 upheld a revision permit for work at 10 Lundy’s Lane and denied a separate jurisdiction request from nearby residents.

President Tanya Peterson and two other commissioners voted to deny an appeal that sought to overturn a permit to repair and alter a rear addition, concluding the Board could reasonably find that much of the rear structure predated the Bernal Heights code change in 1978. Commissioners Frank Fung and Michael Garcia voted in favor; Vice President Kendall Goh dissented and Commissioner Chris Huang was absent. The board’s finding makes the rear portion a legal nonconforming structure under local planning rules, which removes the need for a variance that neighbors had said was required.

Neighbors and neighborhood representatives argued that the building’s rear additions were built without permits, failed to meet code for egress, ventilation and fire-safety elements, and that planning staff had improperly approved plans without the neighborhood notification (a “311” notice). Permit holders, represented by attorney Brett Gladstone and owner Sam Ball, said they spent roughly $130,000 and relied on departmental advice and existing permits and historic documentation. Architect testimony and a letter from a previous owner were offered to show portions of the rear were constructed in or before the 1970s, which would have met the less-restrictive rules in place at that time.

Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department told the board that department staff had issued stop-work orders after a records search showed no clear permit history for the rear wall; he said, however, that if the board finds the portion is a legal nonconforming structure, Planning would rescind its stop-work order and the permit could proceed. Lawrence Kornfield of the Department of Building Inspection described the sources the city uses to verify historic permit records and said missing records are not uncommon but that the absence of a permit in DBI files indicates no permit was produced there.

After extensive testimony and documentary evidence from both sides, the Board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the revision permit on the basis that work in the rear predated a 1978 planning-code change and therefore is a legal nonconforming condition. The Board later denied the separate jurisdiction request for the underlying permit (VPA 20178393) on the same property, by a 4–0 roll call.

The decision leaves the revision permit intact and signals that Planning may rescind its stop-work order for the property; neighbors retain the right to pursue any procedural appeals allowed by the municipal code for other covered permits.