San Francisco Board of Appeals continues Funston Avenue variance appeal after commissioners voice scale and rear‑yard concerns

The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued an appeal over variances granted for a proposed four‑story single‑family home at 1222 Funston Avenue, directing the zoning administrator to re‑examine the rear‑yard finding and the project’s encroachment calculations.

Appellant Rose (Ms.) Feng told the board the variance decision is invalid because the variance holder’s materials appear to depict the front property line at the sidewalk, not the interior fence line, and said the proposed house would reduce light and open space for a cottage she and her parents occupy at 1218 Funston Avenue. “He is not honest,” Feng said of the project representative in an email exchange she described to the board.

Project architect Toby Morris said the application began in 2018, that the planning commission and the zoning administrator reviewed revised plans and found the property qualifies for front‑setback and rear‑yard variances. Morris said the owners reduced height and shifted the building forward at the ZA’s request, and that the design restores the full 15‑foot sidewalk while preserving a second dwelling unit on the lot. “We ask that the board reject the Fang appeal,” Morris told commissioners.

Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department told the board his review and the survey showed no encroachment into the public right‑of‑way and described the long regulatory history: environmental review (2019), repeat neighborhood notifications and planning commission review, which voted unanimously not to take discretionary review. Sanchez said the property contains an existing legal nonconforming cottage in the rear yard that constrains developable area and that the department required the sponsor to move the new building forward and lower height to reduce impacts.

Commissioners pressed both appellant and project team on core issues: whether a shadow study had been performed (Morris said none had been requested), whether the proposed massing fits the block face, and whether an alternative—reducing the building depth by roughly 30 inches to avoid the rear‑yard variance—had been adequately considered. Commissioner Rachel Tanner asked for basic project numbers; Morris said the cottage is about 815 square feet and the new home about 3,700 square feet.

Several commissioners — including Rick Swig and Daryl Honda — described discomfort with the project’s scale and its relationship to neighboring buildings, saying the massing and roofline looked out of context. Others, including Commissioner Tanner, noted the sponsor had made adjustments at the ZA’s request and that maintaining two units on the site is a legitimate objective.

Tanner offered a motion to grant the appeal but amend the variance with a Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) preventing future roof decks, additional decks or expansion of the envelope in perpetuity. That motion failed for lack of the four votes required to overturn the variance decision.

Vice President Daryl Honda moved to continue the matter and asked the zoning administrator to revisit the rear‑yard variance finding and consider if the 30‑inch shortfall could be reduced. The board voted to continue the appeal to Nov. 4 to allow the zoning administrator and parties to confer; the appellant confirmed she is available. The revisit is limited to whether the rear‑yard finding and related encroachment analysis require modification; any final action will return to the Board of Appeals.

What’s next: the board will receive a report from the zoning administrator on Nov. 4. If commissioners decide to overturn the variance, a four‑vote majority will still be required (unless a vacancy changes quorum rules). If no such majority materializes, the current variance decision will stand and building permit review will proceed under DBI oversight.

— Reporting from the San Francisco Board of Appeals hearing on Oct. 28, 2020. Quotes and factual assertions come from live testimony and departmental presentations.