Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals deadlocks on Guerrero Street variance; zoning administrator’s denial stands
Summary
At its Feb. 22 meeting the San Francisco Board of Appeals heard an appeal seeking an exposure variance for 523 Guerrero St. Commissioners split twice on motions to overturn the zoning administrator; both motions failed 2-2, and the ZA’s denial remained in effect by operation of law.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 22, 2017 deadlocked twice on whether to overturn the zoning administrator’s denial of an exposure variance for a proposed dwelling unit at 523 Guerrero Street, leaving the denial in place by operation of law.
Rhonda Fushimi, the project architect, spoke for property owner Alexander Fleming and described plans to convert unused ground-floor storage and a garage-adjacent area into a new unit as part of a voluntary seismic upgrade. Fushimi said planning staff had advised an alternative path and that two permit routes were possible; “I was told to go down to planning,” she said, describing meetings with planning staff and later adjusting the permit approach.
Scott Sanchez, the zoning administrator representing the Planning Department, told the board the proposal would not face onto a code-complying rear yard and that a city administrative process for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) offers waivers that could address the exposure issue but would make the new unit subject to rent control. Sanchez said the five legal findings required to grant a variance were not satisfied because a code-compliant path exists and that, for those reasons, he had denied the variance.
Commissioners questioned whether permanent rent control could constitute a hardship that would justify a variance and debated whether the factual issue was a process matter (use the ADU path) or an exposure determination (whether the new unit’s frontage meets the planning code). Commissioner Rick Swig said he “lean[ed] towards agreement that that's a fair trade” to use ADU waivers in exchange for rent-control protections, while other commissioners argued the unit itself appeared, on its face, to meet exposure dimensions and invited close scrutiny of precedent in prior exposure-variance cases.
A motion to grant the appeal — to overturn the zoning administrator and grant the variance, with written findings to be adopted later — was moved but failed on a 2–2 vote. A subsequent motion to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator likewise failed 2–2. Cynthia Goldstein, the board’s executive director, reminded the board that overturning the ZA requires the board to articulate the five findings and secure four votes; with both motions failing, the ZA’s denial stands “by operation of law.”
The board also handled scheduling and procedural business: it continued Appeal 16-186 (an alteration permit at 143 Corporate Ave.) to April 5, 2017 at the parties’ request; noted withdrawal of Appeal 16-188; adopted the Feb. 15 minutes; and continued Appeal 16-152 (1698 Haight St.) to March 22, 2017 while the building department pursues limited emergency work on retaining walls.
The Board of Appeals meeting was adjourned after the calendar concluded.
