Board of Appeals upholds Planning Commission on contested Twin Peaks HOME SF project

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 26 denied an appeal of a HOME SF project approval for a narrow Twin Peaks lot at 20 Third Street, upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to authorize a 13‑unit, five‑story residential building with three below‑market‑rate (BMR) units.

Karina Lee, an appellant who identified herself as a lifelong Twin Peaks resident, told the board the project ‘‘abuses HOME SF to build extra height, tripling the density’’ on a 3,068‑square‑foot lot and that some proposed units are around 300 square feet — ‘‘the size of a large bedroom’’ (Karina Lee, SEG 403–409, 438–449). Lee urged the board to require the development remain at a 40‑foot maximum height and to change the main entrance from 20 Third Street to Argent Alley.

Counsel for the determination holder, Ryan Patterson, responded that the project is ‘‘100% code compliant under the City’s HOME SF program’’ and that it reserves 25% of units as below‑market‑rate — double the typical inclusionary requirement, he said (Ryan Patterson, SEG 532–538, 568–573). Patterson also told the board that state law, specifically the Housing Accountability Act, limits the city’s ability to disapprove projects that meet objective zoning and development standards and that the appellant had not shown a ‘‘significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable’’ public‑health or safety impact (SEG 643–651).

Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam told commissioners the Planning Department found the proposal complies with HOME SF standards, noting specific entitlement changes the program authorizes: additional units and an extra story, a building height of 45 feet 9 inches, a reduced rear yard, and relief for six units facing a reduced rear yard. Tam confirmed the project must provide three on‑site BMR units (25% of 13) and said the Department updated explanatory language on the HomeSF web page to reduce confusion about where the program applies (Tina Tam, SEG 702–730, 763–769).

The public record included an extended public‑comment period with dozens of callers. Supporters said the project would add housing in a supply‑constrained city and noted the developer’s 25% BMR commitment; opponents said the scale is out of character for the immediate block, raised concerns about parking and access for emergency and construction vehicles, and disputed outreach efforts by the sponsor (public comment, SEG 1036–1550 and following).

After questioning from commissioners — which focused on community meetings, unit mix, and the presence of a cellar‑level unit with limited light — Vice President Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the Planning Commission ‘‘neither erred nor abused its discretion’’ in granting the HOME SF authorization. The motion carried 4–0 (SEG 3063–3083). Acting President Daryl Honda had recused himself from the hearing earlier because of a financial conflict disclosed on the record (SEG 346–353).

What’s next: The Board’s action upholds the Planning Commission approval; if the project proceeds, building permits and DBI plan review will follow and can raise separate technical safety and foundation questions at the next permit stage.

Speakers quoted in this article are those who appeared in the meeting record: Karina Lee (appellant), Ryan Patterson (attorney for determination holder), Tina Tam (Deputy Zoning Administrator).