Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Notice Error Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues appeal at 56620 Ninth Avenue, asks permit holder to submit plans removing contested fourth floor
Summary
After finding likely mailing errors in Planning’s neighborhood notice for 56620 Ninth Avenue, the Board continued Anthony Tam’s appeal to April 11 and directed the permit holder to submit revised plans that eliminate the contested fourth floor. Planning staff said support‑staff errors likely caused the wrong plans to be mailed.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 7 continued an appeal filed by Anthony Tam over a site permit for 56620 Ninth Avenue to allow the permit holder to submit revised plans removing a proposed fourth‑floor addition.
Planning staff told the Board they could not 100 percent verify the contents of the mailed 3‑11 notice but that digital file names and departmental records made it likely that older plans were mailed by mistake. Staff characterized the issue as a staffing error in the Planning Department’s support unit. Appellants and neighbors said they had relied on the set of plans they received and did not know a larger, revised proposal had been presented during a later pre‑application meeting.
The appellant said he and neighbors had not received adequate notice of the revised design and that, had they seen the fourth‑floor plans, they would have filed discretionary review. The permit holder’s counsel acknowledged neighborhood meetings and argued that, under the legal theory of constructive notice, neighbors should have inquired further; the permit holder also said the contractor paid the appellant for earlier foundation damage.
After extended discussion about remedies, including revoking the permit or remanding to the Planning Commission, the Board voted to continue the matter to April 11 to permit the project sponsor to submit revised plans reflecting elimination of the fourth floor. The permit holder agreed to the date at the hearing. The continuance leaves the existing permit in administrative status until the April 11 meeting.
Speakers quoted in this report spoke at the hearing; attributions reflect the Board transcript.
