Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Vertical Controls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tie vote leaves Zoning Administrator’s enforcement decision standing for West Portal Financial Group
Summary
The Board split on whether a West Portal business occupied the 'first story' for zoning purposes; the motion to overturn the Zoning Administrator failed on a 2–2 tie and the ZA decision stands by operation of law. Merchants argued a moratorium limits additional financial services in the district.
The Board of Appeals on May 11 considered an appeal by West Portal Financial Group challenging the Planning Department’s determination that the business occupies the first story of a building at 360A West Portal Avenue under the West Portal Neighborhood Commercial District’s vertical zoning controls.
Appellant counsel David Cincotta argued the building has historically been treated as a two‑story structure since its 1973 construction and that applying the Planning Code’s 6‑foot threshold to reclassify the tenant’s level as the first story imposes a new constraint. The appellant said treating the tenant space as second story would avoid the need for a Planning conditional‑use authorization for certain business uses.
Planning’s Scott Sanchez said the Planning Code defines the first story as the highest building story with a floor level no more than 6 feet above grade and, on that metric, the floor in question is under six feet, making it the first story for zoning controls. Planning stressed that the vertical controls were adopted when the West Portal neighborhood commercial district rules were created and that, as a first story, some business and professional uses require conditional use authorization; separate planning controls also limit certain financial services (stock brokerages) when the district already reaches a numerical cap.
The West Portal Merchants Association said enforcement was necessary because an existing moratorium restricts the number of financial services locations and the district already exceeded the cap. Appellant representatives said their business is primarily financial advising (business and professional service), not a prohibited financial service, and they have discussed conditional‑use approaches with staff.
Commissioner Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s determination; the motion resulted in a 2–2 split with one absence, and under the board’s rules the zoning administrator’s decision remains in effect by operation of law.
