Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board conditions Broderick Street variance: second‑floor expansion removed in compromise
Summary
The Board granted a conditional variance for 2941 Broderick Street on Nov. 9, approving a ground‑floor expansion while removing the proposed second‑floor addition and requiring revised plans; the decision aims to reduce impacts on neighbors’ light and views and carried 4–0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 9 approved a conditioned variance for 2941 Broderick Street, resolving a multi‑hearing dispute between neighbors and the property owner by removing the previously proposed second‑floor expansion and allowing a ground‑floor expansion under the existing deck with reconstruction of the deck and any required firewall.
Appellant Phoebe Schreiber told the board she believed a prior, informal compromise had limited construction to the ground level and kept stairs in place to avoid blocking light to the neighbors’ rear yard; recent permit‑holder decisions had revived the possibility of an upper‑level expansion and required a firewall that would create a solid wall along Schreiber’s yard. The permit holder (speaking as Mr. Ansari) said he had ceded the second‑floor expansion in negotiations and sought a practical, code‑compliant way to build a safer stair and expand lower‑level interior space.
Scott Sanchez, zoning administrator, presented revised drawings dated Nov. 6, 2016 that reflected the alternative design: remove the second‑floor work, expand under the existing deck to the edge of the deck, reconstruct the deck above and rebuild the north‑side stair (with any necessary firewall), and relocate or reconstruct stairs where needed to meet code. Sanchez said the change reduces the visual impact at upper levels while allowing accessory ground‑floor space.
Commissioners questioned where the firewall and stairs would be located and whether adjacent neighbors had been consulted about relocation; several commissioners said the compromise reduced the primary view and light impacts that had been the focus of earlier hearings. The board asked that the variance be conditioned on submission of revised plans that reflect the agreed‑upon alternative so the five findings required for a variance can be documented in the file. The board also asked Planning staff to review those plans within the 10‑day rehearing period to clarify the final scope.
Commissioner Rick Swig moved to grant the variance consistent with the zoning administrator’s readback of the proposed conditions (ground‑floor expansion under the deck, reconstruction of the deck and stair on the north side, removal of the second‑floor expansion); the motion passed 4–0 (Commissioner Wilson absent).
The board’s action effectively allows the permit holder to proceed with a design that omits the higher expansion that had raised neighbors’ concerns, provided the revised drawings are filed and the required variance findings are met.
