Letter of Determination

Transcription

1 Letter of Determination REVISED June 5, 2014 Jeremy Paul Quickdraw Permit Consulting 1325 California Street San Francisco CA Site Address: 260 Laussat Street Assessor s Block/Lot: 0860/031 Zoning District: NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) Staff Contact: Glenn Cabreros, (415) or glenn.cabreros@sfgov.org Dear Mr. Paul: This letter is in response to your request for a Letter of Determination regarding the property at 260 Laussat Street. This parcel is located in the NC-2 (Small scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and the 40-X Height and Bulk District. The request is to allow a two year extension of the Variance Decision Letter dated January 25, 2011 (Case No V) which granted variances to the minimum lot area, rear yard and noncomplying structure provisions of the Planning Code. On March 28, 2014, a Letter of Determination was issued in response to your request which found that an extension could not be granted. This determination was appealed to the Board of Appeals (Appeal No ) and during the course of the appeal process, new information was made available that has resulted in the issuance of this revised Letter of Determination. These new facts are included in the summary below. Background On December 10, 2007, the subject property owners applied for the condominium conversion lottery for the first time with the intention of converting the property to condominiums and subdividing the lot to maintain a three unit building ( Haight Street) and single-family dwelling (260 Laussat Street). At this time, it was determined that a variance would be required to subdivide the lots as proposed. On January 10, 2010, the property owner filed an application for variances from the minimum lot area, rear yard and noncomplying structure provisions of the Planning Code (Case No V). The proposal would allow the 1) lot split and 2) one-story vertical addition to the existing two-story, singlefamily residence at 260 Laussat Street. No work was proposed at the three-story, three-unit building facing Haight Street ( Haight Street). On November 10, 2010, the Zoning Administrator held a duly noticed public hearing on Case No V.

2 Jeremy Paul June 5, 2014 Quickdraw Consulting Letter of Determination 125 California Street 260 Laussat Street San Francisco CA On January 25, 2011, a Variance Decision Letter for Case No V was issued that granted the requested variances. The decision letter stated the authorization and rights vested by virtue of this decision letter shall be deemed void and cancelled if (1) a Building Permit has not been approved within three years from the effective date of this decision; or (2) a Tentative Map has not been approved within three years from the effective date of this decision for subdivision cases; or (3) neither a Building Permit or Tentative Map is involved but another required City action has not been approved within three years from the effective date of this decision. However, this authorization may be extended by the Zoning Administrator when the issuance of a necessary Building Permit or approval of a Tentative Map or other City action is delayed by a City agency or by appeal of the issuance of such a permit or map or other City action. On February 6, 2013, the property owner was notified that they had been selected through the lottery for condominium conversion. On April 5, 2013, the property owner was informed that the condominium conversion process would need to be completed before they could submit a subdivision application for the property to invoke the variance. On June 21, 2013, the property owner submitted the condominium conversion application to the Department of Public Works Bureau of Street Use and Mapping (DPW-BSM). On August 22 and 23, 2013, the property owner received Reports of Physical Inspections for 260 Laussat Street (CC7357 dated August 23, 2013) and Haight Street (CC7280 dated August 22, 2013) from the Department of Building Inspection. These reports document various Building Code issues related to the subject buildings that need to be addressed for completion of the condominium conversion process. On September 16, 2013, the Planning Department approved a referral from DPW-BSM (Case No ) for the conversion of the four existing dwelling units on the subject property into condominium units. On September 17, 2013, DPW-BSM approved the Tentative Map for condominium conversion and required that various elements (including satisfying requirements outlined in DBI Reports of Physical Inspections) be completed by September 17, 2015 to allow issuance of the Final Map for the condominium conversion. On January 24, 2014, the property owner requested a Letter of Determination to extend the expiration of the Variance Decision Letter by two years (to January 25, 2016). On March 28, 2014, the Planning Department issued a Letter of Determination which denied the request to extend the Variance Decision Letter, citing the facts that 1) no subdivision application had been filed within three years and 2) no building permit applications had been submitted within three years. 2

3 Jeremy Paul June 5, 2014 Quickdraw Consulting Letter of Determination 125 California Street 260 Laussat Street San Francisco CA On April 8, 2014, the property owner appealed the issuance of the Letter of Determination to the Board of Appeals (Appeal No ). On May 15, 2014, the property owner submitted a brief in support of their appeal and included a letter dated April 11, 2014 from Bruce Storrs, City & County Surveyor, which stated: "due to the condominium eligibility requirements, the condominium process must be completed and the Condominium Subdivision Map recorded before the subject property can apply for the lot split subdivision." On May 28 and 29, 2014, the property owner provided the Planning Department with additional information including a timeline of events related to the project history. Determination In light of the additional material provided by the property owner in support of their request (as outlined above), I hereby authorize extension of the Variance Decision Letter for Case No V by two years (to January 25, 2016) provided that the property owner submit building permits to address (at least in part) the requirements of the DBI Reports of Physical Inspections by January 25, This extension is authorized because submittal and processing of the Tentative Map for the subdivision application cannot occur until the condominium conversion process is completed. APPEAL: If you believe this determination represents an error in interpretation of the Planning Code or abuse in discretion by the Zoning Administrator, an appeal may be filed with the Board of Appeals within 15 days of the date of this letter. For information regarding the appeals process, please contact the Board of Appeals located at 1650 Mission Street, Room 304, San Francisco, or call (415) Sincerely, i F.Sanche Zoning Administrator cc: Property Owner: Margaret Barda & Bill Gould, 260 Laussat St., SF, CA Neighborhood Groups Glenn Cabreros, Planner PLANNING DEPARTMENT

4 March 28, 2014 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Letter of Determination 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, CA Reception: Jeremy Paul Fax Quickdraw Permit Consulting California Street Planning San Francisco CA Information: Site Address: 260 Laussat Street Assessor s Block/Lot: 0860/031 Zoning District: NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) Staff Contact: Glenn Cabreros, (415) or glenn.cabreros@sfgov.org Dear Mr. Paul: This letter is in response to your request for a Letter of Determination regarding the property at 260 Laussat Street. This parcel is located in the NC-2 (Small scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and the 40-X Height and Bulk District. The request is to allow a two year extension of the variance decision dated January 25, 2011, per Case No V, which granted variances to the minimum lot area, rear yard and noncomplying structure provision of the Planning Code. Variance Case No V granted the aforementioned variances for the subject property to allow a lot split and a one-story vertical addition at the existing two-story, single-family residence facing Laussat Street resulting in a three-story, single-family residence. No work was proposed at the three-story, threeunit building facing Haight Street ( Haight Street). Planning Department records indicates a condominium referral application per Case No was approved by the Planning Department on September 16, 2013 for the conversion of the four existing dwelling units on the subject property into condominium units. The Planning Department has received a copy of "Report of Physical Inspection, Application CC 7357" from the Department of Building Inspection, dated August 23, 2013 for the property located at 260 Laussat Street. The physical inspection report documents various Building Code violations for interior and exterior alterations to the existing building. Building Department records do not indicate that permits have been filed for 260 Laussat Street since the granting of Variance Case No V. No building permit application regarding the proposed vertical addition was filed within the three-year authorization of Variance Case No V. Also, in consultation with the Department of Public Works (DPW), no subdivision application for a Tentative Map for a lot split has been submitted to DPW for their review. The submittal of a condominium application does not preclude the submittal of a subdivision application. AWi48TITh13tI1!I2

5 Jeremy Paul March 28, 2014 Quickdraw Consulting Letter of Determination 125 California Street 260 Laussat Street San Francisco CA The variance decision letter, Case No V, states that the variance "may be extended by the Zoning Administrator when the issuance of a necessary Building Permit Application or approval of a Tentative Map or other City action is delayed by a City agency or by appeal of the issuance of such a permit or map or other City action." No building permit application or subdivision application has been pursued during the three year authorization of the variance. As such, no delay has been caused by the City with regard to the project proposed under the subject variance. Therefore, it is my determination that an extension of the variances granted per Variance Case No V may not be authorized by the Zoning Administrator. APPEAL: If you believe this determination represents an error in interpretation of the Planning Code or abuse in discretion by the Zoning Administrator, an appeal may be filed with the Board of Appeals within 15 days of the date of this letter. For information regarding the appeals process, please contact the Board of Appeals located at 1650 Mission Street, Room 304, San Francisco, or call (415) Sincerely, Scott Zoning Administrator cc: Property Owner: Margaret Barda & Bill Gould, 260 Laussat St., SF, CA Neighborhood Groups Glenn Cabreros, Planner PLANNING DEPARTMENT

6 IJ7.# () p. L]NDY January 24, 2014 It QUICKDRAW PERMII COIULIING 1325 CALIFORNIA STREET CALIFORNIA iiv.pr. lei iulti.g.c.m Mr. Scott Sanchez Zoning Administrator San Francisco Planning Department 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA RE: Request for Letter of Determination PROPERTY ADDRESS: 260 Laussat Street ASSESSOR S BLOCK/LOT No.: 860/031 ZONING DISTRICT: NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial - Small Scale) Dear Mr. Sanchez: We submit this request for a letter of determination for the purpose of completion of a parcel subdivision of the above referenced property. On January 25, 2011 a Variance Decision was issued granting minimum lot size, rear yard, and non-complying structure variances ( V exhibit #1), with the intent of facilitating Planning approval for a parcel subdivision of the subject lot. In the ensuing years the property owners have pursued the necessary code compliance and documentation with the other city agencies involved in this process, specifically Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and Bureau of Streets and Mapping (BSM - DPW). Certain code compliance issues have yet to be resolved and we respectfully request an additional two years to complete the steps of the subdivision process specified in your approval documentation of V. The structures on this property date from the 1880 s and require a great deal of care

7 and attention to detail as modifications to comply with building code move forward. To ensure the maximum possible preservation of the resource DBI has qualified the property for application of the 2013 edition of the California Historic Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 8 California Building Standards Commission (Exhibit #2). We appreciate your patience in this matter, and on behalf of the owners of this property I commit to diligently pursuing this process through to completion. Respectfully Submitte cc. M. Banda, B. Gould 260 Laussat, SF CA 94118

8 COUN PLANNING DEPARTMENT S. Variance Decision Date: January 25, 2011 Case No.: V Project Address: HAIGHT STREET 1260 LAUSSAT STREET Zoning: NC-2 [Small-scale Neighborhood Commercial] District 40-X Height and Bulk District Block/Lots: 0860/031 Applicant: Town Consulting do Tony Kim 100 Clement Street, 3rd floor San Francisco, CA Owner: Margaret Barda and Bill Gould 260 Laussat Street San Francisco, CA Staff Contact: Glenn Cabreros - (415) glenn.cabreros@sfgov.org 1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, CA Reception: Fax: Planning Information: DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES - MINIMUM LOT AREA, REAR YARD AND NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURE VARIANCES SOUGHT: The proposal is to split the existing through lot containing two buildings into two new lots each containing one building. A one-story vertical addition is proposed at the existing two-story, single-family residence facing Laussat Street resulting in a three-story, single family residence. No work is proposed at the threestory, three-unit building that faces Haight Street. Section 121 of the Planning Code requires a minimum lot area of 2,500 square feet. The Haight Street lot proposes an area of 1,800 sf. The Laussat Street lot proposes an area of 1,200 sf. Per Section 134 of the Planning Code, the proposed Haight Street lot is required to maintain a rear yard depth of 18 feet; no rear yard is proposed. The proposed Laussat Street lot is required to maintain a rear yard of 15 feet; the existing 10-foot deep rear yard would be retained. The proposed vertical addition at the Laussat Street building would occur within the existing building footprint which occupies five feet of the required rear yard depth. Per Section 188 of the Planning Code, a noncomplying structure may be altered provided no new discrepancy would be created. The rear portions of both existing buildings are noncomplying structures as they were originally constructed into the required rear yard area. The proposed lot spit would create a new discrepancy on two separate lots. The proposed vertical addition would also enlarge the noncomplying building at Laussat Street. The new discrepancies would be contrary to Section

9 Variance Decision CASE NO V January 25, Haight Street /260 Laussat Street PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: 1. The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as a Class I categorical exemption. 2. The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on Variance Application No V on November 17, Planning Code Section 311 notification will be mailed following application for a building permit application. DECISION: GRANTED, in general conformity with the plans on file with this application, shown as EXHIBiT A, to split the existing through lot and to construct a one-story vertical addition to the two-story, single-family residence along Laussat Street resulting in a three-story, single family residence; subject to the following conditions: 1. The two new lots created by the lot split shall be limited to one building per lot. The unit density for the new lots shall be limited to three units at the lot/building facing Haight Street and one unit at the lot/building facing Laussat Street. 2. Under the granting of the aforementioned variances, no work at the existing three-unit building facing Haight Street is proposed. 3. The proposed vertical addition to the building facing Laussat Street shall be set back approximately 12 feet from the front fa ade. Minimal storage/mechanical enclosures may be proposed within the 12-foot setback; however such enclosures shall be no taller than the parapet at the existing front fa ade. 4. Any further physical expansion, even in the buildable area, shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator to determine if the expansion is compatible with existing neighborhood character and scale. If the Zoning Administrator determines that there would be a significant or extraordinary impact, the Zoning Administrator shall require either notice to adjacent and/or affected property owners or a new Variance application be sought and justified. 5. The proposed project must meet these conditions and all applicable City Codes. In case of conflict, the more restrictive controls apply. 6. Minor modifications as determined by the Zoning Administrator may be permitted. 7. The owner of the subject property shall record on the land records of the City and County of San Francisco the conditions attached to this Variance decision as a Notice of Special Restrictions in a form approved by the Zoning Administrator. FINDINGS: Section 305(c) of the Planning Code states that in order to grant a variance, the Zoning Administrator must determine that the facts of the case are sufficient to establish the following five findings: 2 PL*NNSNG 0PA1WTM4T

10 Variance Decision CASE NO V January 25, Haight Street I 260 Laussat Street FINDING 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same class of district. Requirement Met. A. The subject property is a through lot developed with two buildings, both constructed circa B. Assessor s Block 0860, bounded by Haight, Fillmore, Waller and Steiner Streets, is bisected (eastwest) by Laussat Street. Contrary to what occurs in most City blocks, Laussat Street exists where the mid-block open space would typically occur. As most through lots that back onto Laussat Street are developed with a building at each street frontage (along Haight or Wailer Street), the pattern of development creates an open space area between the buildings on each through lot. C. The building facing Haight Street is listed in the Department s 1976 Architectural Survey. The building fronting Laussat Street was constructed during the same time period as the Haight Street building and is a potential historic resource. FINDING 2. That owing to such exceptional and extraordinary circumstances the literal enforcement of specified provisions of this Code would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not created by or attributed to the applicant or the owner of the property. Requirement Met. A. The lot was originally constructed with the two buildings, one at each street frontage. Literal enforcement of the Code would require a 25-percent rear yard between two residential buildings on the through lot. With the proposed lot split, literal enforcement of the Code would require an 18- foot deep rear yard at the Haight Street building and a 15-foot deep rear yard at the Laussat Street building. To provide the required rear yards, each existing building would need to be shortened in depth from their respective rear walls. B. The building facing Laussat Street is a potential historic resource due to its age. The necessity of upgrading the structural integrity of the building to maintain its habitability and safety is a practical difficulty not created by the applicant or owner of the property. FINDING 3. That such variance is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the subject property, possessed by other property in the same class of district. Requirement Met. A. Granting these variances will allow the subject property owners to construct an additional floor to the existing single-family residence along Laussat Street. The project would allow for improved PLANNING DPARTM1T

11 Variance Decision CASE NO V January 25, Haight Street / 260 Laussat Street amenities/conveniences associated with modern living as possessed by other family-sized units in the same class of district. B. The construction of the upper floor also includes the development of rooftop, useable open space that is directly adjacent to a habitable room. The proposed rooftop open space would supplement the open space provided within the existing, deficient rear yard. C. The lot pattern on the subject block indicates that most through lots on the block, on both sides of Laussat Street, have been granted similar variances to allow lot splits resulting in one building per lot. FINDING 4. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Requirement Met. A. Granting the variances would improve the livability of the subject property and would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the neighboring properties. The lot split is consistent with the existing lot development on the subject block. B. The proposed new floor at the Laussat Street building is within the existing building footprint.. The new floor is set back approximately 12 feet from the front fa ade of the building to appear subordinate to the potential historic building fa ade. C. The total unit density is limited to four units. The existing unit count of the two new lots would be equivalent in number and location to that of the existing through lot. D. The Planning Department is not aware of any opposition to the proposed project. FINDING 5. The granting of such variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Code and will not adversely affect the General Plan. Requirement Met. A. This development is consistent with the generally stated intent and purpose of the Planning Code to promote orderly and beneficial development. Planning Code Section establishes eight priorityplanning policies and requires review of variance applications for consistency with said policies. The project meets with all relevant policies, including conserving neighborhood character, and maintaining housing stock. 1. The proposed project does not adversely affect neighborhood parking or public transit. 2. The proposed project will be in keeping with the existing housing and neighborhood character. 3. The project will have no effect on the City s industrial and service sectors. 4 PLAHIfiNO DPATM1T

12 Variance Decision CASE NO V January 25, Haight Street / 260 Laussat Street 4. The proposed project will have no effect on the City s supply of affordable housing 5. That the proposed project will have no effect on the City s preparedness to protect against injury and loss of life in an earthquake, 6. The project will have no effect on the City s landmarks or historic buildings. 7. The project would not affect any existing or planned public parks or open spaces. 8. Existing neighborhood retail uses will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. The effective date of this decision shall be either the date of this decision letter if not appealed or the date of the Notice of Decision and Order if appealed to the Board of Appeals. Once any portion of the granted variance is utilized, all specifications and conditions of the variance authorization became immediately operative. The authorization and rights vested by virtue of this decision letter shall be deemed void and cancelled if (1) a Building Permit has not been issued within three years from the effective date of this decision; or (2) a Tentative Map has not been approved within three years from the effective date of this decision for Subdivision cases; or (3) neither a Building Permit or Tentative Map is involved but another required City action has not been approved within three years from the effective date of this decision. However, this authorization may be extended by the Zoning Administrator when the issuance of a necessary Building Permit or approval of a Tentative Map or other City action is delayed by a City agency or by appeal of the issuance of such a permit or map or other City action. APPEAL: Any aggrieved person may appeal this variance decision to the Board of Appeals within ten (10) days after the date of the issuance of this Variance Decision. For further information, please contact the Board of Appeals in person at 1650 Mission Street, 3 s Floor (Room 304) or call Very truly yours, Scott F. Sanchez Zoning Administrator THIS IS NOT A PERMIT TO COMMENCE ANY WORK OR CHANGE OCCUPANCY. PERMITS FROM APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS MUST BE SECURED BEFORE WORK IS STARTED OR OCCUPANCY IS CHANGED. GC: G:Docunient9\2010tVariance\563 Haight Laussat\ V Haight - Granted.doc Copy to I:\Decision DocumentsVariance Decision Letters\ V Haight - Granted.doc PLANNING DEPARTMUNT

13 City and County of San Francisco Department of Building Inspection,LD Edwin M. Lee, Mayor Tom C. Hui, SE., C.B.O., Director January 17, 2014 Jeremy Paul Quickdraw Permit Consulting 1325 California St. San Francisco CA Re: 260 Laussat St APN Block 031 Lot 860 Dear Mr. Paul In response to your request to be authorized to apply the California Historical Building Code to the building at 260 Laussat St, please be advised that the California Historical Building Code, Section and 8-218, indicates that buildings that are on lists or surveys adopted by a national, state or local agency, or buildings that have been deemed eligible for such lists or surveys, may apply the California Historical Building Code. The subject building was built in 1885 in the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood. It is categorized as "B - Potential Historic Resource" by San Francisco Planning Department. Based on the historical features of the building, you are entitled to apply the California Historical Building Code to work that takes place in the building and on the site at 260 Laussat St Any specific application to use the California Historical Building Code must detail the specific provisions of that code that you wish to apply along with an explanation of the reasons as to why the regular building code cannot be applied. State Law requires that the Department of Building Inspection, Fire Department and other enforcing agencies in San Francisco accept reasonable equivalent alternatives to the regular code in dealing with qualified historical buildings. You may also wish to review Administrative Bulletin AB-01 3, Disabled Access Alternatives for Historic Buildings, which is printed in the ORules and Regulations" section of the San Francisco Building Code. Very truly yours, Z_ David Leung, Manager, Permit Submittal & Issuance for Ed Sweeney Deputy Director, Permit Services Technical Services Division 1660 Mission Street - San Francisco CA Office (415) FAX (415)

14 LETTER OF AUTHORIZED AGENCY This will authorize the office of Quickdraw Permit Consulting and its personnel, Cathy Wise and Jeremy Paul, to act as my agents in matters of building permits, records, historical documents, appeals, assessors records, application submittal and withdrawal, variance and conditional use, and related issues on my property located at: 24,o Scat Legal Address Signed: Owner of record of above named property. Print Name: Address: Phone: 2-(00 Lzws2xr.