Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Conformance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Continues 221 Fifth Avenue Appeal After Finding As‑Built Work Differs From Approved Plans
Summary
The Board continued an appeal over stairs and garage alterations at 221 Fifth Avenue to September 2, 2015, directing the permit holder to submit a consolidated set of corrected plans after Planning and DBI flagged multiple deviations and work potentially done before required approvals.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued the appeal of the April 28, 2015 revision permit for 221 Fifth Avenue to its September 2, 2015 hearing and directed the permit holder to submit a consolidated set of corrected plans. The action followed testimony from the appellant that some work was done before permits were approved and departmental evidence that the as-built condition diverges from the plans in several respects.
Rosemary Kim, who lives adjacent to the property, told commissioners the reconstructed stair and front façade are inconsistent with neighborhood character and that construction had advanced before the revision permit was issued. She highlighted concerns about a wall located less than three feet from the property line and the absence of an indicated one‑hour fire‑resistant assembly at that location.
John Pollard, representing SF Garage and the property owners, acknowledged errors in the permit process and in plan documentation—saying his firm had failed to secure Planning sign-off for an exterior revision and that some drawing language did not reflect the actual requested work. Pollard offered to amend drawings, restore planned permeable surfaces and landscaping, alter the stair balustrade to a more open design and address finishes at the property line.
Scott Sanchez (Planning) and Joe Duffy (DBI) told the board they had serious concerns: Planning staff noted permeable pavers and planting areas called for on submitted plans had not been installed, the garage door was wider than shown on the plans, and other exterior changes (a filled-in bay/door) were not depicted in the current permit set. DBI reported it had issued a notice of violation March 31, 2015 for work exceeding the scope of an earlier permit and described potential fees for work beyond the scope.
Given the number of outstanding plan and compliance issues, the board opted to retain jurisdiction, require a consolidated plan submittal to Planning and DBI, and continue the matter to September 2 to allow the parties and departments to resolve outstanding technical issues. The submittal was to be provided the Thursday prior to the hearing so staff and the appellant could assess any revisions.
