Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Divisadero Rear Yard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds rear‑yard modification for Divisadero addition, denies neighbor appeal 5–0
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal by a neighboring owner and upheld a rear-yard modification that would extend a Castro Group property 1 foot 4 inches into the required rear yard; the board treated the action as a rear‑yard modification under Planning Code §134(h) and found the required criteria met.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 2 denied an appeal challenging a rear‑yard modification for a second‑floor addition at 1926 Divisadero Street, ruling that the zoning administrator’s decision met the three findings required under Planning Code §134(h).
Appellant Steve Williams argued the proposed roughly 166‑square‑foot, 15‑foot‑tall addition would block direct sunlight to multiple windows and that permit materials failed to show adjacent windows. Williams said earlier settlement proposals (a stepped form or shed roof) were offered but ultimately rejected by the permit holder. He also criticized the planning record and the planning commission hearing process.
The architect for the permit holder, the Castro Group, and the property owners said they had proposed a reduced roof height and that many nearby properties already encroach into the rear‑setback line; the architect presented photographs and a shadow analysis showing limited impact on neighbors’ windows.
Planning Department Deputy Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez told the board the item is a rear‑yard modification (not a variance) and that the modification findings were met; he said the planning commission had reviewed the project and declined discretionary review. City Attorney Brad Russi confirmed the applicable standard is the three criteria in §134(h), not the five variance findings.
After questioning, Vice President Darryl Honda moved to deny the appeal and uphold the rear‑yard modification. The motion passed unanimously, recorded as 5–0. The board’s ruling lets the permit holder proceed under the rear‑yard modification approval; staff and appellants were advised on the record about administrative and planning processes for correction or re‑notice if new material is presented.
Next steps: The appellant may pursue any available legal remedies following the Board’s de novo review, but the Board concluded the planning department’s rear‑yard modification decision met the code criteria and sustained the modification.
