Board continues jurisdiction request over 2200 Beach St. after notice dispute

President Garcia and board members continued a jurisdiction request filed by Marcus Newberry concerning a permit for 2200 Beach Street after conflicting accounts about who received notice of the work.

Newberry’s counsel, David Boonam, told the Board that Newberry “does not live at this property… he never received any notices” and learned the project was starting only when a developer called the day before work began. Permit-holder representative Jack Cristo said the project followed the city’s published and mailed-notice procedures: “There were meetings that took place, there were posted notices, there were mailed notices,” he said, adding the variance was approved and permits obtained.

Planning staffer Tina Tam said the department relied on assessor records when it mailed notices and that, based on those records, the department’s notification was “perfected.” Tam told the board she could not know if an owner had changed an address outside city records and that no return mail was received for the parcel in question.

Vice President Fung proposed giving the parties a short period to try to work out a compromise — Boonam indicated his client would consider a substitution of glass block for wood to preserve light to an adjoining property — and moved to continue the jurisdiction request so the parties could discuss options. The board voted 4–0 to continue the matter to June 4.

The continuance preserves the board’s ability to hear the jurisdiction question later if negotiations fail and gives planning and the parties time to exchange any additional documentation. The board did not at this meeting suspend the permit.

Next step: the matter is set for continued consideration on June 4; if the parties reach no agreement the board will decide the jurisdiction question then.