Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds rear‑yard variance for 276 Ripley over neighbor objections
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal on Aug. 9, 2017, upholding a zoning administrator’s granted rear‑yard variance for a new single‑family dwelling at 276 Ripley Street, finding the zoning administrator properly made the required variance findings; vote 5–0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 9, 2017, denied an appeal and upheld a rear‑yard variance that allows a new three‑story single‑family dwelling at 276 Ripley Street to encroach 14 feet into the required rear yard.
Appellant Lourdes Portillo and her counsel Sue Hester argued the variance record lacked sufficient photographic and survey evidence about impacts to uphill adjacent properties and the mid‑block open space, raising concerns about tree removal, slope stability and loss of privacy. Portillo and neighbors said site grading and a cut‑in trench earlier in June caused soil movement and that one tree had already been removed.
Variance holder Henry Shapiro and his counsel presented assessor maps and topographic data, arguing the subject property is unusually large for Bernal Heights (roughly 35 feet wide by 180 feet deep, about 6,300 square feet), that the proposed building would sit more than 160 linear feet from Portillo’s house and would not materially obstruct views or cause injurious impacts, and that one mature acacia would be retained. Planning Department staff (Corey Teague) told the board the variance application met planning department requirements, that neighborhood notification was conducted and that the zoning administrator found exceptional circumstance (unusual lot size and configuration), practical difficulty and otherwise made the findings required for a variance, including no materially detrimental impacts due to distance and elevation differences.
Appellant counsel asked the board to leave the record open so additional photos and a site survey could be formally entered. Planning staff responded that the required materials for a variance were provided to the zoning administrator and that the ZA did make the requisite findings. After deliberation, the vice president moved to deny the appeal and uphold the variance, and the board voted 5–0 to do so.
The variance preserves a 53‑foot rear yard after the proposed revision and allows the applicant to proceed with building plans consistent with the zoning administrator’s earlier decision.
