Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Crown Terrace site permit in 3— 2 decision amid demolition-by-piecemeal debate
Summary
Neighbors and experts told the board the Crown Terrace project amounted to a de facto demolition and threatened affordable housing and slope stability; the permit holder and city staff said the project met planning and DBI thresholds and welcomed peer review. The board voted 3— 2 to uphold the site permit as code-conforming.
The Board of Appeals on March 20 deliberated a lengthy and contested appeal (13-001) over a site permit for 125 Crown Terrace, where neighbors and appellant counsel argued the proposed alteration amounted to a "de facto demolition" that would circumvent Planning Code section 3.17 and reduce affordable housing stock.
Appellant Steve Williams and retained engineer Pat Buskovich argued the project removes or alters more than allowed and that structural calculations and plans were incomplete or amended after notice and neighborhood review. Williams called it "a de facto demolition" and urged the board to send the project back for a true demolition permit and discretionary review.
Permit-holder counsel and the project team (including structural engineer Rodrigo Santos) responded that the current site permit is an alteration, not a demolition, that the project meets both planning and DBI demolition thresholds and that peer review and addenda processes will address technical questions. Planning staff explained the three tests in Section 3.17 (true demolition; percentage of facades/exterior walls removed measured at foundation level; and percentage of vertical/horizontal surfaces) and said the project—s calculations showed retention of enough of the building to avoid demolition classification.
Neighbors and former officials (including Jake McGoldrick, who helped draft §3.17) urged strict enforcement of the ordinance—s intent and warned that piecemeal replacement can be used to avoid demolition review. Commissioners questioned whether the site-permit package included sufficient structural documentation and whether peer review would catch potential noncompliance during addenda review.
After rebuttal and department comment, Commissioner Fung moved to uphold the site permit as code-conforming. The roll call produced a 3— 2 vote in favor of upholding the permit; the board—s action leaves in place the site permit but preserves DBI and Planning review during addenda and plan check, and the departments noted that if subsequent structural addenda show additional removal that exceed §3.17 thresholds, the permit could be routed back for revision and discretionary review.
The decision resolves the immediate appeal in favor of the permit holder but leaves neighbors and some commissioners concerned about potential circumvention of the demolition-review process and the need for close monitoring during construction.
