Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Broderick rear‑yard variance after failed 45‑degree compromise
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued an appeal over a two-story rear-yard addition at 2941 Broderick to Nov. 9 after a proposed condition to require a 45-degree chamfer of the upper stories and decks failed for lack of votes. The case remains open while parties continue negotiations.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 21 continued its de novo review of an appeal over a rear‑yard variance for a two-story horizontal addition at 2941 Broderick Street to Nov. 9 to allow the missing commissioner to participate and to give neighbors and the permit holder more time to negotiate.
Neighbor Phoebe Shriver, who lives at 2953 Broderick, said the parties had engaged in multiple discussions and mock-ups but that the permit holder ultimately withdrew from a proposed compromise. She asked the board to deny the variance, saying the project did not meet the legal criteria for a variance and noting neighborhood opposition.
Property owner Reza Ansari said his family needs the addition to accommodate his elderly mother and outlined multiple meetings with neighbors and planning staff. He said some design ideas raised by neighbors — including a spiral staircase — were not feasible under code or acceptable to his mother.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department summarized a previously proposed compromise: chamfering the corner of the proposed addition with a 45-degree cut to improve light and air for the Broderick neighbor and removing a triangular portion of deck. Sanchez said he had expected this 45-degree approach to be a workable compromise reached in an Aug. 3 meeting but that the parties later could not finalize agreement.
Vice President Frank Fung moved to grant the appeal subject to a condition requiring that the first story above grade and two decks on the north side be reduced at a 45-degree angle; Commissioners Lazarus and Swig voted Aye, President Honda voted No and the motion failed because it required four affirmative votes. The board then voted 4-0 to continue the case to Nov. 9 so the absent commissioner can participate and the parties can pursue further talks.
What’s next: The board deferred a final decision until its Nov. 9 meeting. If parties do not reach settlement, the board will revisit the variance findings at the continued hearing.
