Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of Appeals revokes variance for 2440 Scott Street roof-deck stair

Board of Appeals for the City and County of San Francisco · February 7, 2007
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to revoke a rear-yard variance that would have allowed a spiral stair and larger roof deck at 2440 Scott Street, with commissioners citing lack of extraordinary hardship and neighborhood impacts on privacy and noise.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to revoke a variance that would have allowed a spiral stair and associated roof-deck access at 2440 Scott Street.

Vice President Michael Garcia moved to overturn the zoning administrator's approval after appellants argued the finding of extraordinary circumstances and the hardship that would justify a variance under Section 305 of the planning code were unsupported. Appellants said the proposed stair would enable a large rooftop entertainment space—featuring a fireplace and barbecue—that would be uniquely intrusive, reduce privacy for adjacent residents and increase ambient noise. They pointed to aerial maps and lot-depth comparisons to argue the property was not unusually burdened relative to neighboring lots.

The variance holders' architect, James Stavoy, and planning department staff said the staircase was required by the building code as a second means of egress for the occupied roof and that the applicant reduced the penthouse height, prepared a shadow study and made other design changes to limit visual impacts. Planning staff also said the roof deck itself falls within the buildable area and did not require a planning variance.

Commissioners debated whether the five-factor test for variances was met. Several members said variances are meant to be exceptional and that the record did not show conditions unique to this lot that would justify creating a new privilege for the owner. After discussion, the Board voted to revoke the variance and instructed staff to prepare findings under the City Charter for adoption at the March 7 meeting.

The Board recorded the action as a formal revocation; the decision was unanimous.