Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Parking Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Upholds Zoning Administrator’s Denial of Parking Variance at 180 Corwin Street
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3–2 to uphold the zoning administrator’s denial of a parking-variance request for a six‑unit building at 180 Corwin St., concluding the board lacked the four votes required to overrule the department. Appellant cited major financial hardship if forced to convert a unit to BMR.
President Randall Knox presided over a close vote Thursday after hearing developers’ testimony and detailed financial figures from appellant Roger Tellis, who said converting a unit to a below‑market‑rate (BMR) sale would be financially ruinous. “The BMR sales price would be $175,000,” Tellis told the board and described being “into the unit for about $326,000,” which he said would leave him roughly $151,000 underwater if forced to sell at the BMR price.
The dispute centers on whether a parking‑space shortfall — five off‑street spaces where six are required for a six‑unit building — can be excused by a variance. Planning Department staff and several commissioners questioned the appellant’s financial calculations and pressed whether alternative parking solutions or a more complete BMR analysis could avert losing a housing unit.
Tina Tam, a senior planner for the Planning Department, told the board the department stands behind its determination and that the prior record does not clearly establish the kind of economic hardship that would justify overturning the denial. Commissioners debated policy tradeoffs: several stressed the city’s shortage of housing and reluctance to remove a rental unit from the market for the sake of a parking space, while others emphasized precedent and the need for clearer evidence.
President Knox moved to uphold the zoning administrator’s denial. On the roll call, the result was two votes in favor of overturning the administrator and three against; the clerk stated that four votes are required to overrule a departmental action, so the denial stood.
The board did not adopt any additional conditions and the denial remains in effect. The record shows a split panel: some commissioners signaled sympathy for the owner’s hardship, others said the evidence and past practice did not warrant overturning the denial. There was no further procedural motion to continue or remand the matter.
