Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies consolidated appeals and upholds 891 Carolina Street permit
Summary
After hours of testimony and cross-examination, the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 24, 2018 denied five consolidated appeals challenging the 891 Carolina Street site permit, finding the Planning Department and DBI had properly vetted the project and that required standards were met.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied five consolidated appeals to a site permit for 891 Carolina Street on Oct. 24, 2018, upholding the Department of Building Inspection and Planning approvals after lengthy testimony from neighbors, appellants and the permit team.
Neighbors and appellants argued the project — a remodel to convert a single-family dwelling to a two‑unit residence with vertical and horizontal additions — misapplied development rules by treating an adjacent rear cottage at 897 Carolina Street as fronting on Carolina rather than 20 Second Street. Appellants, including Robin Bishop and Christine Gardner, said that error led to an incorrect rear‑yard calculation and that the project violated planning code sections and the Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs), including impacts on mid‑block open space, privacy and light.
The permit holder, Bill Canahan, and architect John Lum said the plan had been revised repeatedly and vetted by Planning’s residential design team; they noted removal of roof decks by the Planning Commission and other concessions. Planning Department principal planner Richard Sucre explained the zoning administrator’s determination that 897 Carolina follows the surrounding block’s development pattern and that an averaging method under planning code §134 was therefore appropriate, a view the Planning Commission adopted in its review. DBI’s Joe Duffy told commissioners that building‑code equivalencies (citing AB005) permit emergency escape/opening to an appropriately sized yard rather than direct egress to a public way; DBI staff said the plan shows the required ~25‑foot yard for that equivalency.
Public comment included neighbors who said the project would 'box in' mid‑block open space and block light; an attorney in the audience noted the Housing Accountability Act (Cal. Gov. Code §65589.5) and said objectively compliant housing projects face legal protection from de facto denial. The applicant’s team offered mitigations — obscuring some property‑line windows, a living wall and paint/color options for an adjacent wall — to address privacy concerns.
After deliberation, Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeals and uphold the permit on the basis that the permit had been properly issued and reviewed by Planning and DBI. A competing motion to grant the appeals conditioned on opaque glazing for certain upper windows failed. The motion to deny the appeals carried and the board concluded the matter, leaving the site permit in place.
