Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance 1776 Vallejo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds rear‑yard variance for 1776 Vallejo, requires deed restriction against lot split
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted a variance allowing a carriage‑house addition at 1776 Vallejo but attached a notice of special restrictions on the deed prohibiting subdivision; commissioners approved the variance by a majority after debate about privacy, historic impacts and setbacks.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted Sept. 12 to grant a rear‑yard variance that allows construction of a two‑story carriage house at the rear of 1776 Vallejo Street while imposing a deed restriction preventing subdivision of the property.
The board heard testimony from the adjacent owner John Moran, who said a large floor‑to‑ceiling window would invade the privacy of several bedrooms, and from the appellant’s attorney Ryan Patterson, who argued the variance was legally unsupported and would materially injure the neighbor’s property. The permit holder’s counsel, Jim Rubin, and architect Louis Butler argued the lot’s L shape and depth create extraordinary circumstances and that the design was subordinate to the landmark Burr House.
Planning staff (Scott Sanchez) and the Historic Preservation Officer (Tim Frey) told the board the five variance findings had been met, noting the lot is unusually shallow and the project would preserve a mature magnolia and maintain appropriate setbacks. Commissioners questioned whether a nine‑foot shift back, directional glass, or other design mitigations could reduce privacy impacts.
Motion and outcome: Vice president Swigg (recorded as Zwick in parts of the transcript) moved to grant the appeal and uphold the variance on the condition that a Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) be placed on the deed to prohibit future subdivision (a permanent restriction on bifurcation). The motion passed with three affirmative votes; Commissioner Lazarus voted no. The board recorded it would be a site permit issue later to resolve any property‑line window or design details.
What it means: The variance allows the property owner to proceed toward a building permit path that would add a second dwelling unit on the lot while preserving a deed‑level restriction intended to keep the new unit as an adjunct of the existing property rather than enabling a separate lot sale. Commissioners signaled they expect further review of property‑line windows and site permit design details when the project returns for that phase.
