Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds variances for 1269 Lombard infill project over neighborhood objections (4–1)
Summary
After lengthy testimony and review of planning and historic-preservation records, the Board of Appeals upheld zoning administrator variances allowing demolition and two new buildings at 1269 Lombard, finding the variance criteria met despite neighbors' claims the rear unit is out of scale.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 15 voted 4–1 to uphold planning decisions allowing a two-building infill redevelopment at 1269 Lombard Street, including front-setback and rear-yard variances the appellants had challenged as inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern.
Appellants and neighbors argued the rear building would be out of scale, would improperly replace an existing nonconforming structure, and would materially diminish light and privacy for adjacent cottages. Appellant Frank Marl told the board: "You can't put 2 units on this lot," arguing the lot size and historic neighborhood pattern do not support the proposed intensification.
Planning Department staff and the permit holder pointed to a multi-stage review by the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission. Planning staff described that RH-2 zoning allows two dwelling units as a baseline and that the project had undergone discretionary review and subsequent hearings; Scott Sanchez, planning staff, told the board: "In the RH 2, you are, as of right, permitted 2 dwelling units."
Board discussion weighed the unusual lot configuration, topography, and prior approvals. Some commissioners expressed concern over the scale of the rear unit but concluded the variance findings were satisfied in this case. The board’s motion to uphold the zoning administrator's grant of variances passed 4–1.
What’s next: The Board of Appeals’ decision leaves in place the variances approved by the zoning administrator and the Planning Commission; parties retain any appellate rights available under city procedures.
