Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds permits for 66 Mountain Spring Ave, denies neighbors' appeals 3-0
Summary
After hours of testimony from multiple neighbors and the project team, the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied appeals challenging demolition and site permits for 66 Mountain Spring Ave, finding the project met code and the Residential Design Guidelines as applied by Planning and the Planning Commission.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 19 denied consolidated appeals of a demolition permit and a site permit for 66 Mountain Spring Avenue, voting 3-0 that the permits were properly issued.
Neighbors and appellants described long-standing concerns about scale and neighborhood character, saying the proposed replacement would be far larger than typical North-Side Mountain Spring houses and calling for specific changes recommended by the Residential Design Advisory Team (RDAT) including a 3-foot top-floor east setback and reduced street-level massing. "The mass of the project is out of scale with adjacent homes," said appellants' counsel, pointing to the RDAT matrix that recommended further massing reduction.
Project counsel John Kevlin said the design underwent multiple RDAT iterations and was found compliant by planning staff and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission with conditions. "The project is completely code compliant," Kevlin said, summarizing changes made during review: increased side setbacks, reduced roof parapets and roof-deck area, eliminated certain windows, and additional notches to reduce perceived massing.
Deputy Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez presented Planning Department analysis showing the lot measures roughly 50 feet by 100 feet, the proposed building would measure under 22 feet as built (well within the 30-foot limit for this downsloping lot), and RDAT and the Planning Commission had concluded the project met the Residential Design Guidelines with conditions. Sanchez also summarized the CEQA review: an appraisal supported a demolition exemption because the property value exceeded the affordability threshold used in the code.
Opponents emphasized context and precedent: several residents said the street's character depends on low street-facing facades on the north side of the slope and that this project's larger, forward massing would be an outlier. Appellants submitted RDAT materials and slide comparisons showing the proposed front massing and the existing house's smaller facade.
Supporters including local builders and friends of the sponsor urged approval, saying the project is consistent with neighborhood patterns and that extensive adjustments were made to address concerns.
After questions and deliberation focused on the balance between subjective design compatibility and objective code compliance, the board concluded the planning analysis and commission conditions addressed neighborhood concerns and that the permits were properly issued. Commissioners Lazarus and Chang and Vice President Swigg voted to deny the appeals on the demolition permit and on the site permit, each motion carrying 3-0.
The board's decision upholds the Planning Commission's conditions (eliminate certain upper west windows, add a northwest notch at upper floors, and reduce and setback the roof deck) and leaves enforcement and any follow-up to Planning Department staff and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI).
