Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rear Yard Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds rear‑yard variance at 2325 Clifford Terrace after contested hearings
Summary
The Board of Appeals upheld a variance allowing a modest third‑floor encroachment at 2325 Clifford Terrace for a family remodel, finding Planning’s review and lot shape justification persuasive despite neighbors’ concerns about light, privacy and neighborhood character.
On April 10 the San Francisco Board of Appeals upheld a zoning‑administrator decision granting a rear‑yard variance for a remodel at 2325 Clifford Terrace, allowing a modest encroachment at the third floor so the property owners can expand their home.
Neighbor appellants argued the project would substantially increase square footage, harm a mid‑block open space, and reduce light and privacy. Appellant Gary Sokol and several residents emphasized the block’s unique topography and neighborhood character and labeled the requested variance a "self‑created hardship," pointing to a 1978 modification that altered the lot’s development pattern. "Planning code stays forever," Sokol said, urging the board to enforce the rear‑yard standards rather than grant a long‑lasting exception.
Property owners Lucia and Kevin Wallace and their architect Joshua Adelen described a design that retains two dwelling units, adds sustainable features including a living roof, replaces unsightly paved front areas with landscaping, and minimizes building footprint changes. Planning Department reviewer Scott Sanchez described the lot’s irregular shape and the location of existing nonconformities; the department found the requested small encroachment (about 75 square feet at the proposed third level, as characterized in the planning analysis) supportable given the lot geometry and the project’s mitigation measures. The Residential Design Team reviewed the proposal and found it compliant with the design guidelines.
Board members discussed potential code‑compliant alternatives (e.g., shifting volume toward the front) and whether the applicant had explored them; staff noted such alternatives could reduce livability or parking and that removing the second dwelling unit would be subject to a separate process. Commissioners ultimately concluded the zoning administrator did not err or abuse discretion and voted 4‑0 to uphold the variance. The planning director noted the building permit remains on hold pending the appeal; with the variance upheld the applicant may proceed with permit processing subject to other approvals and any remaining permitting conditions.
Board instructions preserved the briefing schedule and record requirements for related follow‑up matters.
