Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds variance at 3636–3638 Webster after neighbors object
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal and upheld a variance for a rear‑yard addition at 3636–3638 Webster Street, finding planning and DBI evidence supported the zoning administrator’s findings despite neighbors’ claims that the 2006 variance should not apply.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 16, 2016, denied an appeal seeking to overturn a variance granted for rebuilding an addition at 3636–3638 Webster Street, voting 4–0 to uphold the zoning administrator’s decision.
Appellants argued the variance was improperly justified by a prior 2006 variance and that the project would encroach 7.5 feet into the required rear yard, harm light and privacy and create an unacceptable precedent in the Marina. Lead appellant said the prior variance had been nullified by earlier demolition and that the current application should be judged de novo.
Counsel for the variance holders said extensive dry rot discovered in 2014 required reconstruction in the existing footprint and that the rebuild did not enlarge the footprint. The variance holder’s counsel said the project had been conditioned during the joint hearing with the planning commission to pull back a small deck and to incorporate privacy‑protecting features.
Planning staff and DBI testified about the site history: the property sits in an RH‑2 district, had an earlier variance and a reconstruction that planning later determined required a variance. Scott Sanchez noted the reconstructed room encroached into the rear yard and that staff had held a joint hearing and conditioned approval to address impacts. Joe Duffy described inspection history and noted the planning department initially erred in issuing a permit but that inspections and finalization later occurred.
After deliberation the board concluded the five findings required under Planning Code section 305C were met and the variance should be upheld. The order preserves the conditions imposed by the zoning administrator and leaves enforcement of those conditions to the usual permit and inspection process.
The board’s action affirms the zoning administrator’s use of variance findings where a historically existing nonconforming structure required reconstruction after significant deterioration.
