Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals affirms zoning action on rear work at 1266B Dolores but allows front work to proceed with conditions
Summary
After hearing testimony and public comment about alleged unauthorized demolition at 1266B Dolores Street, the Board upheld the zoning administrator’s notice of violation for the rear portion while conditioning relief to let permitted front‑portion work continue; the Board required that any rebuilt rear portion not exceed the original footprint and that a variance be sought if it does.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on [date of meeting] affirmed the zoning administrator’s finding that recent work at 1266B Dolores Street went beyond the scope of the approved permit for the property’s rear yard, but voted to allow certain permitted work on the front of the building to proceed under conditions.
Planning Department senior planner Tina Tam told the Board that photographic evidence and multiple site visits showed that the rear walls ‘‘were removed, stripped to the stud and replaced’’ and that such demolition and reconstruction in a required rear yard triggers the planning code’s review and variance requirements. Tam said the department needed the opportunity ‘‘to review and process the necessary application per what the planning code specifies, about non complying structures.’’
Counsel for Dolores Street Holdings LLC, Lou Belanger, and the project’s structural engineer, Ephraim Hirsch, said the work was performed to meet life‑safety and seismic requirements and that the project team had attempted to retain and incorporate existing structural members where possible. Belanger urged the Board to consider the building‑safety imperative, telling commissioners: "When it comes to life safety, I think the building code trumps the planning code." Hirsch likewise described shoring and the need to install new studs and gypsum to achieve the one‑hour fire rating required at the property line.
Neighbors and multiple nearby residents, including Jeff Barry and Mark Fullman, testified that they had witnessed demolition beyond permitted scope, reported increased shadowing and loss of light and asserted the rebuilt structure differed materially in footprint, height and materials from the prior rear addition. Several neighbors submitted photos and said the stop‑work orders issued in March and June had not been sufficient to prevent construction beyond approved plans.
The Board debated two competing motions. A motion to overrule the zoning administrator with the condition that the new structure conform to the original footprint failed to win the four votes required to overturn a departmental determination. The Board then adopted a narrower motion to reinstate or allow the front‑portion permit to proceed while retaining the zoning administrator’s notice of violation for the rear portion. The second motion included two conditions: that the front work may continue independent of the rear, and that any new work at the rear must not exceed the original footprint (and, if it would, the owner must apply for a variance). That motion passed by roll call 5–0.
The Board’s action leaves the notice of violation in place as to the rear portion and allows planning staff to review any subsequent variance application. The decision restores limited permit activity for the front of the building but preserves the planning department’s ability to seek corrective plans and to require a variance where intensification or a new footprint is present.
The Board’s order was procedural and narrow: it did not impose demolition‑specific penalties, and it directed city staff to verify the scope of the front versus rear work consistent with the condition the Board adopted. Planning staff and the permit holder will return or comply as required by the notice of violation and any follow‑up filings.
