Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds permit for 333 El Camino Del Mar addition, denies neighbors’ appeal 5–0
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5–0 March 11 to deny appeals by neighbors challenging a fourth‑floor addition at 333 El Camino Del Mar, after finding the project complies with planning code height and residential design guidelines. Appellants argued the design manipulated dormer rules and misrepresented height limits.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously March 11 to deny appeals filed against a site permit for a fourth‑floor addition at 333 El Camino Del Mar, concluding the project complied with the planning code and residential design guidelines.
Neighbors Scott Guterman and Frank DeRosa asked the board to overturn the permit granted to owners Peter and Michelle Carter, arguing the design improperly used a dormer to create habitable space and that drawings and a 2013 settlement misstated the site’s height limit. Guterman told the board his appeal “presents four challenges: neighborhood opposition, a design that manipulates the building code, encroachment on our privacy and a project that threatens to change the character of the neighborhood.”
The owners and their project team said the 624‑square‑foot addition is set back 27 feet from the front, is sculpted in a sloping roof consistent with the residential design guidelines, and was reviewed and approved by planning staff. Architect Stephen Sutro said the project uses the code’s midpoint height measurement and that the dormer is less than 20 percent of the roof area, a numerical standard the planning code uses to limit dormers.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department explained the city’s method for measuring height, noting that RH‑1 districts can yield a 35‑foot effective limit depending on lot configuration and grade. Sanchez told the board that staff repeatedly reviewed the project, visited the site and concluded the addition “is a reasonable application of the code.”
After questioning from commissioners about survey points, the interpretation of a private settlement agreement from 2013, and the project’s effect on neighborhood character, Vice President Daryl Honda moved to deny the appeals on the ground that the permit was properly issued. The board recorded a 5–0 vote in favor of the motion and the appeals were denied.
The denial leaves the existing building permit in place. Planning staff and the Department of Building Inspection remain responsible for enforcement and any plan checks or addenda associated with the permit.
