Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the 23 Sparta topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies jurisdiction request for 23 Sparta; finds permit and extensions valid

San Francisco Board of Appeals · June 10, 2015
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Neighbors asked the Board to take jurisdiction over a 2010 DBI site permit for 23 Sparta Street after they said a planning notification error deprived them of review. The board found the permit had been validly extended and denied the jurisdiction request 4–0.

The Board of Appeals on June 10 denied a jurisdiction request from neighborhood residents seeking to re-open review of a building permit for 23 Sparta Street, voting 4–0 that the permit and extensions had been lawfully issued and that discretionary review was not available.

Requester Phyllis Chiu said a March 11 neighborhood notification was issued in error during a recent addenda submittal and that neighbors were therefore denied the opportunity to pursue a discretionary review. "We want the opportunity to file a DR and to reengage with the project sponsor," she told the board.

Permit‑holder architect Greg Choi and DBI senior building inspector Joseph Duffy reviewed the long permit history dating to a site permit in 2010 and multiple extensions that DBI said were authorized under the building code. Planning staff explained the project underwent neighborhood notification earlier, a earlier DR request was withdrawn after revised plans, and addenda are not subject to the 3/11 discretionary notification process. Planning and DBI staff said the site permit remained active and the extensions and addenda had been processed in accordance with code.

After hearing neighbors’ concerns, the board concluded due process had already occurred and that the jurisdiction request could not be granted. The denial leaves the 2010 permit in effect and prevents another appeal of that permit.