Board of Appeals upholds denial of variances for 4300 Seventeenth Street, 5–0

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 5–0 vote on Tuesday upheld the zoning administrator’s denial of lot‑size and rear‑yard variances for 4300 Seventeenth Street, rejecting an appeal by the property owner to subdivide the corner lot and build a three‑story, two‑unit building with an accessory dwelling.

The project sponsor, identified in the hearing record as Scott Pluto (surname also appears as Pluta in the transcript), told the board the proposal would add two “missing‑middle” units and one deed‑restricted below‑market unit and argued that 20 years of variance precedents show similar splits have been granted. “To see the obvious, as a city, we need housing,” he said, urging the board to view the proposal in the context of the city’s housing shortage.

The zoning administrator, identified in the record as Cory Tee / Corey Teague, told the board the lot is a typical roughly 3,000‑square‑foot RH2 corner parcel in the Corona Heights special use district and that variances are intended to address exceptional and extraordinary circumstances for individual properties, not to implement broad housing policy at a parcel level. “Variances are not really meant to solve policy issues at the individual property level,” he said, and recommended that the board deny the appeal because the five required findings in Planning Code §305(c) were not met.

Several commissioners raised the same concerns. Commissioners said the planning commission had already denied the project’s conditional‑use authorization (CU), argued that the CU denial and the expired appeal window make the proposed form of the project legally and procedurally difficult to approve, and asked whether the sponsor had any supplemental plan that would avoid triggering the CU. Zoning staff told the board the CU appeal period had likely expired and explained that while the board may grant a variance separately, doing so would be “challenging” if the planning commission had already found the project incompatible with the neighborhood.

Neighbors and neighborhood groups provided lengthy public comment opposing the appeal. Multiple speakers and a neighborhood association said the proposal would result in nearly 100% lot coverage of the new lot, would produce market‑rate units rather than materially expanding affordable housing, and would harm light, air and privacy for adjacent properties. Speakers noted more than 200 letters of opposition on file with the planning commission and said the project had been revised and denied in multiple hearings since 2020.

After a short rebuttal from the sponsor reiterating his findings‑based memo and asserting notice issues at the planning commission, Vice President Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal, stating the five findings required under the planning code had not been proved. The board voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator’s decision.

The board’s action upholds the department’s determination that the site lacks exceptional circumstances and that granting the variances would be equivalent to a reclassification of the property — a matter, the zoning administrator said, for the planning commission or the Board of Supervisors rather than a variance decision. President Honda adjourned the meeting at the close of the item.

What’s next: The transcript records the board’s denial; the sponsor indicated he may pursue other code‑compliant options or reapply in different form. The planning commission’s prior conditional‑use denial and any statutory appeal windows remain relevant to whether and when the sponsor can seek further approvals.