Board of Appeals allows multiple garden structures within a contiguous 100 sq ft footprint, recommends 36‑month enforcement hold

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 23, 2020, granted an appeal over a Planning Department letter of determination that had been interpreted for more than three decades to allow only a single rear‑yard garden structure. On a 5–0 vote, the board directed staff to revise the letter so that more than one garden structure may be allowed provided the total contiguous coverage does not exceed 100 square feet, and it recommended that the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection refrain from enforcing the related Notice of Violation for 36 months.

The case concerned 150 Morningside Drive and two freestanding, non‑permanent sheds the homeowner had placed in the rear yard. Appellant Joshua (Josh) Ryskin testified that the sheds are used to store medical equipment, bedding and supplies needed to care for his 88‑year‑old mother, who has advanced dementia. “My mom is 88, disabled, has advanced dementia, and is currently residing in a nursing home, which costs about $700 a day,” Ryskin said during his presentation, describing the need for on‑site storage should she move in.

Appellant counsel argued the zoning administrator’s 1988 interpretation effectively rewrote the planning code by treating the plural references in the code as applying to a single structure. “This is trying to say, ‘oh, that doesn’t matter. I’m changing the planning code with this interpretation,’” counsel told the board, urging the commissioners to overturn the determination and to calibrate enforcement to the code’s plain language.

Planning Department deputy zoning administrator Scott Sanchez told the board the longstanding interpretation exists because allowing an unlimited number of small sheds without permits would “lead to an absurd result,” undermining the city’s rear‑yard requirement and making enforcement impractical. “If no permit is required and they could have an unlimited number, I don’t know really where the city’s enforcement would come into play at that point,” Sanchez said, warning that such an outcome would effectively defeat the rear‑yard regulations.

Commissioners said they were troubled by both the department’s formal position and the real hardship presented by the homeowner. Several members indicated they believed the 1988 interpretation lacked sufficient explanation and could be narrowed to preserve the rear yard’s intent while allowing practical storage options. After extended questioning of counsel, the homeowner and department staff, Commissioner Rachel Tanner moved to grant the appeal and to direct the Planning Department to revise its letter of determination to allow more than one garden structure provided the covered area is contiguous and the total coverage does not exceed 100 square feet. The board also requested that Planning and DBI hold enforcement of the Notice of Violation for 36 months while the parties seek further resolution.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi advised the board that any recommendation to suspend enforcement would be nonbinding on DBI and Planning but that the board could make the recommendation as a matter of record. The board’s action alters the agency guidance applied to this appeal and instructs Planning to issue a revised letter reflecting the new interpretation the board adopted tonight.

The board’s ruling applies to this letter of determination; it does not itself compel DBI or Planning to waive enforcement, and those agencies retain authority over enforcement practice. The decision closes the appeal; Planning staff said they will review the interpretation and discuss the board’s enforcement recommendation with DBI.

The board concluded the hearing by adjourning in memory of Robert (Bob) Passmore, a longtime zoning administrator whose service to the city was described at the start of the meeting.