Opis
Owner cut front commercial unit (1217 Park St) in half to create illegal residential unit B. No permits were issued, and the electric, gas, plumbing work was not to code and dangerous. No zoning variance was requested or granted. Chief Building Official has personally granted the owner what amounts to a zoning variance: a permit allowing her to cut a door between legal residential unit A and only-allowed to be commercial unit B, joining the two and effectively converting unit B to a quasi-legal residential unit AB. Please confirm that Mcfann does not have the power to change the zoning in this way, especially without notice and a hearing.
also asked...
A. Zoning Information
A. Verify zoning for 1217 Park St is C-C, which means commercial only on the ground floor, except for grandfathered in rear studio unit 1217 A, per 2004 unit determination.
15 Skomentujs
City of Alameda (Verified Official)
K T (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
K T (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
Who is the "Planning Manager"?
I was in the Permit Center a week a so ago and was told by "David from Planning" that a decision had been made by the Building Department to allow the owner of this building to convert 1217 B space into a legal residential unit, even though the 2004 unit determination showed the the entirety of that unit was part of the front commercial unit 1217 Park St., so the "last permitted use" was as a commercial property, not living space. The notice of violation says the illegal, unpermitted, and dangerous unit must be returned to its "last permitted use." David from Planning could not explain to me how this happened, not could he explain why the city has taken no action on this violation since it was first reported in September 2016. He was able to tell me that the decision was made entirely by the Building Department, and that if I wanted to know the answer I would need to talk to Greg McFann.
I was able to call the Planning Line again, getting Henry, who confirmed that David was correct, and that Planning had not made the decision, did not have access to the documents which would show how or why the decision was made, and that the only persons who could answer why the owner of this building is effectively being given a zoning variance is Greg McFann or one of the Code Enforcement officers under him. Please post the answer to this question here, as I have no hope of getting the information directly from McFann, Givens or Fullard.
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
TheyreCensoringOurCommentsOnThisSite (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
Dan M (Zarejestrowany użytkownik)
I saw your thread on the rat problem, but it was closed to comment, so commenting here in chance you will see it. I have another failure of Alameda to enforce its own code. Any experience with filing a complaint with the City's Attorney? Assume that may be a requisite to a mandamus action.