Board continues Portola Drive building-permit appeal to July 21, orders document exchange

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 16 continued a contested appeal of a site permit for a three‑story single-family house at 1325 Portola Drive to July 21 and required the permit holder to provide additional documents and briefing to resolve neighborhood concerns.

Appellants Peter Lynn and Trudy Marr and Saint Francis Wood association representatives alleged neighbors had not received full notice, that an affidavit of neighbor approval contained signatures some neighbors said were not theirs, and that the final approved construction drawings and survey had not been shared with immediate neighbors. Appellant Peter Lynn said neighbors "have never seen a set of [approved] plans" and alleged a forgery on association paperwork. Mitchell Benjamin, the association's architectural consultant, told the board he had reviewed earlier planning-stage drawings but not the final construction documents and asked for a complete set be made available.

Permit holder Sophia Nhu told the board an earlier approval existed (1992) and that revised plans were approved in 02/2008; she said the building department had lost copies of some documents and that she had asked her architect and a licensed surveyor to re-submit required drawings. Scott Sanchez, acting zoning administrator, confirmed the application history: a Section 3.11 neighborhood notice was sent in early review, a discretionary review was filed and later withdrawn, and planning records show revision submissions (including revision dates in late 2008 and early 2009) and indicate core setback requirements are being met.

To clarify outstanding factual issues, Commissioner Christine (last name reference in transcript) and others moved to continue the matter to July 21. The board directed the permit holder to submit the construction drawings and the survey to all parties and to the Saint Francis Wood Homes Association, allowed additional briefing (12 pages per party) with deadlines (appellants two Thursdays prior; permit holder one Thursday prior), and continued the hearing; the motion passed 4–0.

The continuance is intended to let parties verify whether the final approved plans match the versions circulated earlier and to resolve questions about notice, signatures and plan completeness before the board takes final action.