Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for 645–647 Valencia after neighbors’ challenge over shadows and tree
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal to overturn a site permit for a five‑story addition at 645–647 Valencia Street, rejecting a proposal to require a design change that would shift new floors to reduce rear-yard shadowing; appeals raised concerns about a property-line Indian laurel fig tree and neighborhood character.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 8, 2018 voted to deny an appeal challenging a site permit for renovation and an addition at 645–647 Valencia Street, upholding prior approvals by the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Department.
Neighborhood appellants argued the project’s massing and lack of setback would create a 50‑foot wall that threatens light, garden space and an Indian laurel fig tree on an adjacent property. Appellant James Goosen Larson said the addition’s massing and placement would reduce light and could damage roots during excavation. "If the root system is damaged, the tree could become hazardous," he said.
Sponsor Dennis Ring and architect Toby Morris said the project has been redesigned repeatedly with preservation staff input to retain the building’s historic facade and minimize impacts. The project team presented a shadow study showing a projected 1 percent increase in shadow on the neighbor’s yard; Morris said that change would not materially alter the appellant’s shade garden and that arborist review concluded root losses from the new building were unlikely to require tree removal.
Planning Department representative Scott Sanchez explained that the project had gone through environmental review and preservation review and that required setbacks were set by preservation staff; he warned that moving the addition closer to Valencia could trigger a new environmental-review process. The board debated a commissioner’s proposal to grant the appeal on condition that the top-floor addition be shifted seven feet toward Valencia, but commissioners said that change might force an environmental re-review, increase cost and delay the housing project.
After hearing proponents’ and opponents’ arguments, the board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. Commissioners who supported denial said the permit had been properly issued after required reviews and that prior variance and preservation determinations had been made publicly and repeatedly.
