Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds denials for 135 El Camino Del Mar; appeals denied
Summary
The Board of Appeals on Aug. 22 denied two appeals related to unpermitted additions and variance requests at 135 El Camino Del Mar, upholding Planning Department and DBI denials and recording a 4–0 vote to maintain the department decisions.
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 22 denied two appeals concerning 135 El Camino Del Mar, upholding the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) determinations by a unanimous vote.
Appellant attorney John Carey described a long history after a 1995 sinkhole and said the property owners had relied on emergency permits and city direction during reconstruction. Neighbors and a section-14 party speaker, including Sue Hester and Rodney Graviet, told the Board they had found multiple additions on the property that they described as unpermitted and out of character with the neighborhood.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department summarized the file: a 1998 permit to restore the residence was issued in error with inaccurate site plans, later work exceeded the scope of that permit, and a 2010 application to legalize as-built conditions failed to meet the five findings required for a rear-yard variance. DBI’s Patrick O’Reardon described a sequence of notices of violation beginning in 2008 and said inspections and subsequent permit filings followed.
Several neighbors detailed alleged plan alterations on the job site and urged the Board to respect the Planning Commission and zoning-administrator denials. Carey countered that the owners had been directed by city staff during an emergency response and that the record should be examined in a forum where evidence can be produced.
After questions and deliberation, Commissioners concluded there was insufficient basis to overturn the denials and moved to deny the appeals. The Board recorded a 4–0 vote to deny both appeals; the denials stand and the matter concluded at the hearing.
