Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies homeowner appeal, upholds permit for 60 Russell Street addition
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 21 denied an appeal by the Sprintsons challenging a Planning Department‑approved permit for additions at 60 Russell Street, finding the permit properly issued after hearing neighbors’ concerns about light wells, privacy and process.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 21 denied an appeal by Philip and Kristen Sprintson and upheld the Department of Building Inspection permit allowing a two‑story addition and other changes at 60 Russell Street.
The Sprintsons told the board they had new materials from the Planning Department’s residential design team showing the project fit neighborhood scale and argued the Planning Department later changed course in ways that violated their due‑process expectations. “There is no merit to the changes that were put upon us,” a representative for the Sprintsons said while presenting the RDT findings.
Neighbors and a Section 14 party raised concerns about reduced light wells, privacy and massing. Tracy Luke, who lives at 64 Russell Street, said the approved plan proposed a light well only about one‑third the size of the current opening and warned that the change would “give it a sense of a tenement feeling.” Multiple neighbors submitted diagrams and letters arguing the project is out of scale and that planning review shifted during the discretionary review process.
Scott Sanchez, Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department, told the board staff acted on direction from the Planning Commission after the commission found the project did not comply with residential design guidelines. He described the board’s hearing as a de novo review and recommended upholding the Planning Commission’s determination.
After asking questions about the record and the email exchange cited by the appellants, Vice President Frank Fung moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. Commissioners Lazarus, Honda and Wilson voted in favor; the motion carried and the appeal was denied.
The board’s decision leaves the Planning Commission’s approval in place; the parties were informed the project remains subject to any remaining permit conditions and inspections required by DBI.
