Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permits for 110 Alpine Terrace after neighbor and owner reach accommodations
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied two appeals by Sarah White challenging permits for renovations and a detached garage at 110 Alpine Terrace, finding plans code‑compliant; commissioners encouraged continued neighbor communication and DBI complaint processes for construction concerns.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 29 denied two appeals by a next‑door neighbor to construction permits at 110 Alpine Terrace, concluding the permits were issued in compliance with applicable code.
Sarah White, owner of 108 Alpine Terrace and the appellant, said her primary concerns were loss of southern views, light impacts and the project’s potential effect on her Airbnb income and daily life. She told the board she and the permit holder had a productive dialogue and that she sought continued notice of construction timelines and reasonable working hours.
Property owner Amir Ravandoust and architect Michael Hennessy described multiple rounds of neighbor outreach and design adjustments, including lowered ceiling heights and stepped massing intended to reduce light and privacy impacts. Hennessy walked the board through plans showing setbacks, dormer placement and rear elevation relationships intended to minimize effect on adjacent properties.
Planning (Corey Teague) and DBI (Joe Aspatal) reported the project had previously undergone variance review and neighborhood notice and that the permits complied with planning and building codes. DBI reiterated that complaint mechanisms and field inspections are available if construction deviates from approved plans.
President John Trezvino moved to deny the appeals on the basis that the plans and permits are code‑compliant; the motion carried 4–0. Commissioners encouraged the parties to maintain communication on construction hours and scheduling and noted DBI’s complaint process is available to enforce approved plans and applicable noise/working‑hours rules.
The board’s decision upholds the permits as issued; DBI said it will respond to any filed complaints and perform inspections if work appears to deviate from approved plans.
