Board upholds variance and denies appeals for 695 Rhode Island Street; permits remain approved

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 21 denied two consolidated appeals challenging (1) a rear‑yard variance approved by the zoning administrator for 695 Rhode Island Street and (2) the building permit for a multi‑story addition at the same address. The board voted 5–0 to uphold the zoning administrator’s variance decision and, separately, to deny the building‑permit appeal.

Appellant Dan Feldman, who represents neighbors including family members who live next to an open mid‑block area, argued the project would effectively remove or merge an existing dwelling unit in a way that required discretionary planning commission review. Feldman's counsel, Brett Gladstone, said earlier plans and permit records showed the lower level had the characteristics of an independent dwelling (an ‘‘existing bedroom’’ and separate access) and that the proposed alterations would reduce the lower unit’s size by more than 25%, triggering additional discretionary review.

Project representatives and the Planning Department disputed that characterization. The property owner’s team, represented in the hearing by Victor Marquez and architect Mark Dimlanta, said the project had undergone neighborhood outreach beginning in 2019, had been reviewed by the Planning Commission (which declined discretionary review at the earlier hearing), and that the unit counts and floor‑area calculations support the project as proposed. Planning Department zoning administrator Corey Teague explained his April 3 variance decision and said the variance findings (five required findings) were supported by the lot’s context — its irregular lot depths and local slope — and the particular practical difficulties at the site; he also said the planning commission had previously reviewed the project and had not identified an unlawful unit.

DBI staff reviewed egress and structural issues and said the basement level qualified for an exception to the emergency escape and rescue window requirement because it had two means of egress. DBI told the board the permit was reviewed by the required agencies and could be processed consistent with code.

The board discussed whether the lot’s characteristics and the site context met the ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ standard for a variance and whether the proposed changes constituted a unit removal or merger that should trigger discretionary planning commission review. After deliberation, the board adopted a motion to deny the appeals: first, by denying the appeal of the variance decision (upholding the zoning administrator) and then denying the appeal of the building permit. Both votes were 5–0.

The board made clear this was not an endorsement of any sloppy permitting practices; several commissioners emphasized that applicants and neighbors should attempt to engage earlier in the process to avoid protracted appeals. The zoning administrator and DBI remain responsible for plan review and enforcement under normal processes.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the Board of Appeals hearing transcript for May 21, 2025.