Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds zoning administrator on Pacific Avenue projects, denies neighbors’ appeal
Summary
The Board of Appeals rejected a community appeal challenging modifications to rear‑yard and garage‑entry standards at 1364 and 1370 Pacific Avenue, concluding the Zoning Administrator’s findings met planning‑code criteria including sun‑access-plane compliance and comparable on‑site open space.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 18 denied an appeal of zoning determinations for two Pacific Avenue properties, upholding a zoning administrator’s approval of a garage‑entry variance and a rear‑yard modification for projects at 1364 and 1370 Pacific Avenue.
Appellant counsel Andrew Peterson told the board an independent sun study showed Lynch Alley is already 94% in shadow and that the planned buildings would eliminate an additional 30% of the remaining sunlight, arguing the work violated the 2007 neighborhood rezoning and would be materially injurious to surrounding properties. "The zoning administrator's error should be corrected by this Board of Appeals to require the minimum 15 foot rear yard setbacks," Peterson said.
Counsel for the property owner, Melinda Sargentpour, and Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department countered that the rear‑yard determination is a modification (not a variance) under planning code section 134E and that the project satisfies the three statutory criteria: residential uses are included; the plan provides comparable usable open space elsewhere on the lot (terraces and decks); and the sun‑access plane and other non‑variable provisions are met. Sargentpour placed elevation drawings and area calculations on the record showing terraces and tiered setbacks designed to preserve light and air.
Board members acknowledged neighborhood concerns about shadowing and scale, but focused on the legal standard for overturning a zoning administrator’s determination—whether there was clear error or abuse of discretion. After deliberation Commissioner Fung moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the required variance findings had been met and the rear‑yard modification did not reflect an abuse of discretion. The motion passed 5–0, denying the appeal and leaving the determinations in place.
The board noted that design and building‑permit reviews remain a subsequent stage where construction details and conditions can be addressed.
