Board upholds zoning administrator on rear‑yard variance at 3987 Twentieth Street, 3–2

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 17 upheld a zoning administrator’s decision to grant a rear‑yard variance for a two‑story rear addition at 3987 Twentieth Street, sustaining the permit despite opposition from neighbors and the Dolores Heights Improvement Club.

The item was continued from an earlier hearing so Commissioner Frank Fung could participate; Fung asked for short presentations from each side before deliberations. Madeleine Todd, speaking for the appellants, said the subject lot already enjoys access to green space and that the newly granted variance — described in the record as an 11‑foot encroachment at the lower level and a 6‑foot encroachment above — would be unprecedented for the block and would harm neighbors’ privacy and outlook. Todd said planners met with project sponsors between two variances and presented a planner timesheet that, in Todd’s view, showed significant sponsor contact that the appellants had not seen.

Jeremy Paul, representing the project sponsor, said there was only a single variance application and that an erroneous decision letter had been issued earlier due to a clerical/template error; he defended the zoning administrator’s decision as thoughtful and appropriate in context, noting the pattern of rear‑yard extensions and roof decks on the block.

Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department told the Board the application was submitted in February and followed a nine‑month review that included public outreach, a site visit and staff‑planner discussions with sponsors and neighbors. Sanchez apologized for the incorrect decision letter and said the correct decision reflected the plans before the Board.

Pam Hemphill, cochair of the Dolores Heights Improvement Club, urged the Board not to uphold the variance and instead to accept a neighborhood compromise; other neighbors expressed similar concerns about cumulative impacts and preserving the special‑use district’s rear‑yard pattern.

In deliberations, commissioners weighed contextual design elements, the presence of similar massing and decks on other lots nearby, and whether the zoning administrator abused discretion. Commissioner Fung moved to uphold the zoning administrator’s granting of the variance. The motion passed with a 3–2 outcome: Commissioners supporting upholding the decision emphasized the lot’s pattern and staff findings; dissenting commissioners cited concerns about roof‑deck and spiral‑stair impacts and the effect on mid‑block open space.

The board recorded the vote as the variance being upheld and, with no further business on the agenda, adjourned.

What’s next: The Board’s action means the zoning administrator’s decision stands unless overturned by a subsequent, separate appeal or further administrative review.