Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues rehearing on 70 Crestline Drive after DPW reverses tentative lot-split approval
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued a rehearing request for 70 Crestline Drive after the city and county surveyor rescinded a tentative subdivision approval and referred the matter back to Planning; the board agreed to wait for the subdivision/lot-split to be resolved through city processes.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 20 continued a rehearing request tied to the subdivision approval for 70 Crestline Drive after the city and county surveyor said he had rescinded his earlier tentative approval.
Bruce Storrs, City and County Surveyor, told the board he rescinded a letter he had issued earlier that had conditioned a tentative subdivision approval on a no-build statement being placed on the map. "I issued a I rescinded my tentative approval of this project and the condition that a no build statement go on the map," Storrs said, explaining he reconsidered making such a planning determination alone and had referred it to Planning for review.
Planning Department senior staff told the board the building permit and the subdivision review occurred as separate processes and that Planning had not found evidence of a historical condition that required the area to remain open space. Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department summarized the record: the permit application dated to February 2009; the Planning Commission had approved the project and the Board of Appeals denied the permit on July 17; a tentative subdivision approval issued Sept. 11 and was appealable to the Board of Supervisors. "At this point I would assume that we would be approving the subdivision application," Sanchez said, but added Planning would re-review the historic materials to determine whether a Building Setback Line (BSL) had been imposed as a condition in 1962.
Appellants and neighborhood representatives argued the BSL and related map history should not have been set aside; developers and permit-holders urged delay until the subdivision and any Board of Supervisors appeals were settled, to give the rehearing the benefit of a final subdivision decision. The board voted to continue the rehearing "to the call of the chair" pending resolution of the city subdivision and referral processes and allowed additional briefing on the rehearing request.
The continuance preserves the board's earlier underlying decision on the building permit while keeping the rehearing open until DPW, Planning and, if necessary, the Board of Supervisors complete their reviews.
