Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission orders restoration after finding illegal demolition and inconsistent filings at contested Seventeenth Avenue project
Summary
After extensive public testimony and evidence alleging an unpermitted demolition of a three‑story bay and disputed lot‑creation documentation, the Planning Commission voted 5–1 to take discretionary review and ordered restoration of the illegally removed bay and re‑submission of plans consistent with prior conditions; commissioners stressed enforcement and documentation concerns.
The Planning Commission confronted a polarized neighborhood dispute over two proposed houses at 25 and 27 Seventeenth Avenue during an extended discretionary review on July 25.
Neighbors filed discretionary review petitions alleging the sponsor demolished a three‑story bay without permit, submitted inconsistent architectural plans and relied on a certificate‑of‑compliance process to treat the parcel as two buildable lots. Planning staff reviewed the enforcement history, explained DBI and planning notices of violation and appealed enforcement outcomes; staff also reviewed preservation analyses that concluded the altered building was not an individually significant historic resource for CEQA purposes.
Commenters representing 26 neighbors and petitioners described a long pattern of misrepresentation, multiple inconsistent plan sets and forensic‑architect analysis they said understated project square‑footage. They also argued the site had been a single consolidated lot historically and urged the commission to deny the applications until legal lot status and accurate surveys were confirmed.
Project sponsors and their counsel said the county surveyor and DPW had reviewed the record and that a certificate of compliance process confirmed two legal lots; sponsors also said they had revised building massing in response to staff and promised additional mitigation (sound attenuation, removing fire pits, front‑deck setback) and that the new design would be compatible with the block when modified per staff recommendations.
After prolonged hearing and robust public comment, the commission voted 5–1 (Commissioner Fung opposed) to take discretionary review action that required the sponsor to revert the property to its prior condition (effectively directing restoration of the removed bay) and to resubmit compliant plans. Several commissioners emphasized adherence to permit rules and expressed unwillingness to set a precedent of forgiving unpermitted demolition by legalizing work through permit approvals.
The commission instructed staff to enforce the reversion and to require the sponsor to follow standard steps (accurate surveys, corrected plans and required permits) before any new applications for the lots would be considered. The action was recorded in the hearing minutes as a motion to take discretionary review and revert the property to its previous condition; commissioners also noted the sponsor remains able to resubmit new plans compliant with the code.
