Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rehearing 670 Shotwell topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing for 670 Shotwell Street; commissioners cite no new evidence and a one-year reapplication rule
Summary
The board voted 5-0 to deny a rehearing request from permit holder Beth Miles for 670 Shotwell Street (appeal 24-032). Commissioners said the statutory 1-year reapplication prohibition in Business & Tax Code Article 1, Section 31 was not new and did not meet the rehearing standard; DBI and Planning described possible workarounds and timing uncertainties.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 1 denied a rehearing request from permit holder Beth Miles concerning appeal 24-032 (670 Shotwell Street), voting 5-0 that the rehearing standards had not been met.
Laura Strazzo, an attorney representing Miles, asked the board to rehear the prior June 26 decision that had revoked a permit. Strazzo said new information emerged after the board's action: city staff applied Business & Tax Code Article 1, Section 31 to bar reapplying for the same or a substantially similar permit for one year, which, she said, left her client without a path forward. She also said the parties had since discussed revisions that might address neighbor concerns, including removing a rear gate and limiting short-term-rental access through a locked side gate.
Opponents, including the appellants Mickey and Art Cristerna and several neighbors, urged the board to uphold the prior revocation. Appellants said the work that prompted the original appeal violated condo CC&Rs, created an access issue to exclusive-use property and had safety implications for nearby residents.
Corey Teague, zoning administrator in the Planning Department, explained that the business-and-tax-code provision can impose a one-year prohibition after a denial and that whether the code constitutes "new information" for rehearing purposes is discretionary for the board. Kim Birmingham of DBI said the department typically would not have supplied that obscure code explanation proactively to an applicant at the counter and noted that plan checkers can sometimes identify alternative scopes or separate-permit approaches to avoid a one-year bar.
Several commissioners said they were aware of Section 31 and did not consider it a new fact that would meet the rehearing standard. Commissioners urged better communication among neighbors and between applicants and departments, and asked DBI and Planning to provide clearer guidance to prospective applicants on how the one-year rule is applied.
President Lopez moved to deny the rehearing request on the basis that standards for rehearing had not been met; the motion carried 5-0. Commissioners instructed staff to consider ways to improve public notice and departmental guidance about the limits the code imposes on reapplication.
