Board of Appeals continues disputed Collingwood window appeals to April 11 after notice error

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 14 continued two appeals over window replacements at 62 Collingwood Street to April 11, 2012, after a split vote that turned on a procedural misstep by the Planning Department.

The dispute centers on an over-the-counter permit filed Jan. 20 to legalize 11 windows installed in November 2007 — six on the primary facade and five on the side. Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department told the Board staff failed to serve a Block Book Notification (BBN) tied to the property when the permit was issued; the department suspended the permit, issued the BBN on Feb. 1 (the same day the appeal was filed), and scheduled a discretionary-review hearing for the Planning Commission next week. "We suspended the subject permit," Sanchez said, and staff's "preliminary recommendation is the commission not take discretionary review and allow the project to proceed."

Appellant testimony focused on process and neighborhood character. An appellant identified in the transcript as "Mister Burdell" told the Board that the missed BBN deprived neighbors of the opportunity to review the permit and said several neighbors plan to appear at Planning. "This is what we're fighting over," he said, urging the Board to let Planning hear the matter so neighborhood concerns about preferred wood windows and street character can be considered.

The permit holder (name not specified in the transcript) urged the Board to hear the merits immediately, saying the windows had already been reviewed by Planning staff, the residential design team and preservation specialists. She described personal hardship and delay in putting her unit on the market: "I got triple pane windows" and asked the Board to let the project move forward so she could sell the property.

Board members were split. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to the permit holder and noted there has already been significant review by Planning staff and preservation specialists; others said the city's failure to follow its own BBN process required correction before a final decision. Commissioner Frank Fung moved to continue both appeals (case nos. 12-007 and 12-011) to April 11 and to permit additional briefing. The Board adopted a five-page limit per party for supplemental briefs, with appellants' briefs due March 29 and permit holder replies due April 5.

On the roll call, President Michael Garcia, Vice President Chris Huang and Commissioner Frank Fung voted to continue; Commissioners Chris Hillis and Arcelya Hurtado voted no. The motion passed 3-2. The Board's secretary noted that if the Planning Commission declines discretionary review, the Planning Department would release its suspension and the zoning administrator's determination would remain appealable to the Board.

The Board set the continued hearing for April 11 and required the parties to file limited briefs ahead of that date. The Planning Commission's discretionary-review hearing remains scheduled for next week; if that body takes action, Planning staff said they would return to the Board to present any recommendations.