Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds parking variance for Stanyan parcel, directs preservation of natural environment
Summary
After a lengthy hearing, the Board of Appeals granted a parking variance for a new house on a lot off Stanyan Street but attached a condition directing preservation of natural environment/greenery where feasible, while leaving technical fire and DPW requirements to permit review.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to uphold a parking variance that allows construction of a new house on a legal lot off Stanyan Street without providing one required off-street parking space, while directing the permit holder to preserve the site’s natural environment “to the greatest extent possible” consistent with code and departmental approvals.
Tina Tam of the Planning Department told the board the parking variance addressed only parking requirements and that stairs and landing areas that lie in an unaccepted public right-of-way are under the Department of Public Works’ purview. “The parking variance is only for parking and nothing else,” Tam said, urging the board not to treat stair design as part of the variance approval.
Appellants urged narrower stair width, reduced landing area and maximum preservation of greenery. “We just like to see it cut down as much as possible,” said appellant counsel Steve Williams, who argued a 400-square-foot landing was excessive and proposed reducing the landing to about 100 square feet and using wood railings and more greenery.
The project architect, Mark Brand, said narrow stairs (less than 48 inches) would impose practical burdens for residents and garbage/recycling handling and that his design had been revised to include planters and green elements. Department of Building Inspection and fire-safety staff warned that egress, firefighter access and code-prescribed assembly areas could require specific dimensions or mitigation (for example, sprinklers) during the permit stage.
Commissioners debated whether it was premature to impose highly specific conditions before DBI, DPW and fire review. The board ultimately approved the variance while adding a general, contingent direction that the permit holder respect and preserve the natural environment to the greatest extent possible, subject to building, fire and DPW requirements and the later site-permit review. The motion passed 5–0 (President Fung, Vice President Knox, Commissioners Garcia, Albright and Holland). The board also noted the issue may return for DPW or further permit appeals.
