Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeal over alleged third unit at 2082 Pine Street continued after mixed evidentiary record
Summary
The board heard competing evidence about whether a third dwelling at 2082 Pine Street was lawfully established before 1955 and whether it was abandoned after a 1983 notice of violation; commissioners were split on the record and continued the matter one week to allow full consideration and participation of an absent member.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals heard a contentious appeal by property owner Brian Hunt challenging the denial of a permit to reinstate a claimed third dwelling at 2082 Pine Street.
Scott Sanchez, planning department staff, reviewed archival records—Sanborn maps, water department files, and a report of residential record—and said the department found no conclusive evidence the third unit was lawfully permitted prior to 1955. Sanchez noted a 1983 notice of violation that referenced the third unit and subsequent building‑permit history (including a 1986 building permit removing an alleged illegal unit and a certificate of final completion), which the department treats as documentation the building is legally a two‑family dwelling.
Hunt and his representatives countered with photographs, assessor’s records, PG&E meter photographs, an independent architectural assessment and asserted that the third unit historically existed, was occupied, and that lost or misfiled city records should not prevent correction of an apparent historic error. Hunt said his team had produced roughly 50 pages of additional documentation since the last hearing and urged the board to reinstate the unit to ease a family housing need.
Commissioners debated two legal questions: (1) whether the third unit was installed lawfully before the 1955 parking requirement (which could have grandfathered it) and (2) whether the use was abandoned under the planning code. Some commissioners said circumstantial materials (reverse directories, assessor cards) suggest long‑term occupancy that could support a lawful nonconforming status; others emphasized the lack of conclusive permit or building‑department records and the difficulty of overturning a decades‑old departmental adjudication. Several members expressed sympathy for the applicant’s housing argument but noted procedural limits to retroactive legalization.
Given the split views and the absence of a full five‑member bench, commissioners voted to continue the matter to May 19 to allow additional consideration and to permit the president to participate. The public hearing remains closed; no final determination was issued at the May 12 meeting.
