Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 214 State Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues 214 State Street item after dispute over 'tantamount to demolition'
Summary
Neighbors opposed a continuance for 214 State Street, calling recent work tantamount to demolition; DBI staff told planning staff the work was not an "unlawful demolition," and the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to May 3 and requested DBI review and city‑attorney advice.
The Planning Commission voted to continue consideration of Item 12 (214 State Street) to its May 3 calendar after neighbors urged the commission not to delay and the project sponsor requested more time while Building Inspection Department clarifications are pursued.
Neighbors described the condition at 214 State Street as a long‑standing excavation and a "tantamount to demolition" condition that has hurt adjacent residents. An unnamed resident told the commission, "I would not like to continue...it is a tantamount to a demolition and it has been a gigantic hole for over a year." Another neighbor, Chris Parks, said the site is “just a huge cavity that was carved out of a hill.”
Project sponsor Kevin Chang asked commissioners to continue the item because DBI and Planning interpretations of ‘‘demolition’’ differ and because an upcoming DBI hearing and outstanding DBI documentation related to the permit scope could affect the case. "We respectfully request that we be continued in light of that new information that may come forth," Chang said.
Planning staff (Jeff Horn) said DBI senior building inspector Joe Duffy had emailed that DBI’s determination was that the work did not qualify as an "unlawful demolition" under DBI procedures, but staff and several commissioners noted the Planning Commission’s own code defines "tantamount to demolition" differently. Commissioners debated whether to formally request the Building Inspection Commission (BIC) to hold a public hearing on the case to reconcile the disparate interpretations. Several commissioners argued that even if DBI staff could not reverse their technical determination, the BIC’s public process could provide clarity and make findings available to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Richards moved to continue items outlined by staff and to ask the DBI Commission to publicly hear the State Street matter and the City Attorney to provide an interpretation. The motion to continue the listed continuances passed unanimously, and a separate motion to continue Item 12 to May 3 passed 5–1 with Commissioner Moore voting no.
What this means: The commission will not take final action on Item 12 at this hearing; staff and the sponsor are expected to supply additional DBI materials and the City Attorney said her office would “circle back and look at that issue” and coordinate with DBI counsel.
Provenance: Item introduced by staff at SEG 021; public comment and sponsor request at SEG 054–117; DBI memo confirmation discussed at SEG 133–142; motions and votes occurred at SEG 415–496.
