Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues review of variance appeal for 3772 Twentieth Street to allow ZA participation
Summary
The board continued an appeal relating to a rear‑yard variance at 3772 Twentieth Street to its July 12 meeting to allow the zoning administrator and an absent commissioner to participate; parties argued about reconstruction vs. repair and whether variance findings were met.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued its review on June 28 of an appeal challenging the zoning administrator’s denial of a rear‑yard variance for 3772 Twentieth Street. The project proposes to demolish an existing 1921 garage in the rear yard, replace it with a smaller garage and create a roof deck and open space. Counsel John Kevlin said the replacement would be smaller and safer and would add usable open space for the property’s four dwelling units; the zoning administrator had denied the variance, concluding required findings were not met.
Planning Department staff reviewed the case history and noted the variance application dates back to 2015 and that the planning commission had earlier approved the project but the ZA later found the five variance findings unmet. Commissioners debated the line between repair and reconstruction — a key legal test because reconstruction can trigger more stringent review — and discussed whether the property’s long‑standing nonconforming condition and deeded parking spaces constitute practical difficulty or hardship. A neighbor spoke in opposition, urging the board not to allow reconstruction that would continue mid‑block bulk and affect shared open space.
Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to continue the matter to the July 12 meeting so Commissioner Bobby Wilson could participate and the zoning administrator could attend; the board agreed and continued the item. The continuance preserves the parties’ opportunity to supplement the record before a final decision.
The board did not reach a final determination on the variance; the July 12 meeting was set as the next scheduled date for further consideration.
