appeal no. 16-046

Upload: potreroboosters

Post on 07-Jul-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    1/39

     

    City and County of San Francisco Board of A

    Cynthia G. GExecutive D

    Edwin M. LeeMayor

    March 18, 2016

    Martin Building Company, Motion Holderc/o Julie Heinzle, Agent for Motion Holder14 Mint Plaza, 5th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94103

     Appeal No.: 16-046 Appeal Tit le: Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Associa

    Subject Property: 88 Arkansas StreetMotion Type: Section 329 Large Project Author ization

    Case No.: 2015-000453ENXSHD

    Dear Julie Heinzler:

    This is to notify you that an appeal has been filed with this office protesting thethe above referenced Section 329 Large Project Authorization. Pursuant tothe San Francisco Business & Tax Regulations Code, the subject motion is heSUSPENDED until the Board of Appeals decides this matter and releases a nodecision and order.

    We are enclosing a copy of the Preliminary Statement of Appeal for your info

    The hearing regarding this matter has been scheduled for  May 18, 2016, at 5Hall , Room 416, One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place.

    If you have any further questions, you may call this office at (415) 575-6880.

    Sincerely,

    BOARD STAFF

    cc: Planning Department c/o Scott Sanchez, Zoning Administrator

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    2/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    3/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    4/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    5/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    6/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    7/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    8/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    9/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    10/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    11/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    12/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    13/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    14/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    15/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    16/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    17/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    18/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    19/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    20/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    21/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    22/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    23/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    24/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    25/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    26/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    27/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    28/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    29/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    30/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    31/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    32/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    33/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    34/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    35/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    36/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    37/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    38/39

  • 8/19/2019 Appeal No. 16-046

    39/39