Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeal of front‑yard variance at 1966 Great Highway falls short; variance stands
Summary
Neighbors argued a new four‑story two‑unit building at 1966 Great Highway would overbuild a narrow lot and misapply front‑setback calculations; the board considered the arguments but did not obtain the four votes required to overturn the zoning administrator, so the variance remains in place.
Neighbors of 1966 Great Highway pressed the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 8 to rescind a front‑yard variance they say was incorrectly calculated and will leave a tall two‑unit structure looming in front of an architecturally significant home.
Appellant Theresa Folks and neighbor Wayne Allen said the zoning administrator misapplied the setback rules and used an incorrect baseline when computing the required front yard. They described a historic, architect‑designed house at 1956 that they said would be visually overwhelmed if the proposed Murray residence were allowed to project to within 7 feet of the front property line.
The zoning administrator, Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department, told the board the property is a shallow, substandard 25‑by‑69‑foot lot and staff measured the maximum front‑setback requirement under Section 132(e) at 10.5 feet; the applicant’s proposal would encroach roughly 3.5 feet. Planning staff said the parcel went through discretionary review, the project was modified from the original proposal, and the revised design and the modest encroachment satisfy residential design guidelines.
Commissioners split on whether the variance findings were met. Commissioner Fung moved to overrule the zoning administrator; that motion carried 3–2 on the board roll call but the board’s rules require four votes to overturn a departmental action. Because the motion did not reach the four‑vote threshold required by charter, the variance remained in effect and the Planning Department may proceed with the existing building permit process.
Appellants said they will continue to pursue remedies available through appeal channels. The board noted that some technical issues, such as the exact room‑down and unit sizing, can be reviewed later as part of building‑permit checks.
Next step: the variance stands and the Planning Department will continue processing the building permit; the appellants may pursue further administrative or judicial review if they choose.
