Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds zoning administrator on SB 35 eligibility for 143520 Sixth Avenue; appeal denied 3–0
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal challenging a zoning administrator letter of determination about SB 35 eligibility for a proposed expansion at 143520 Sixth Avenue, finding no error or abuse of discretion; the ZA advised the appellant to pursue a project‑specific permit if they wish to proceed.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 17 denied an appeal of a zoning administrator letter of determination (LOD) concerning SB 35 eligibility for a proposed expansion at 143520 Sixth Avenue, voting 3–0 to uphold the ZA’s decision.
Appellants argued the zoning administrator should have interpreted state law and alleged inconsistent treatment and process unfairness; they sought refunds of fees and asked the board to reopen an earlier appeal. The appellant’s filings raised numerous state‑law and code questions and cited prior determinations the appellant said supported broader ZA consideration of state law.
Zoning Administrator Corey Teague told the board that under Planning Code section 307 the ZA issues determinations about the planning code and interpretive guidance for the city’s implementation of the code, but he does not interpret or resolve state‑law questions that are the province of state courts. Teague said the department had engaged with the applicant since 2021, that the property’s proposed project (a two‑story vertical and horizontal addition and an ADU) is not eligible for SB 35 as the department has interpreted it, and that staff had advised the applicant about options including filing a building permit or pursuing other state‑law processes such as SB 9.
The appellant’s representative said the process was unfair and that the ZA had previously issued state‑law determinations in other cases. Teague and city attorneys, he said, had advised staff during the review. The board pressed for clarity about the specific project at 143520 Sixth Avenue and the practical path forward.
After questions and discussion, Commissioner Alex Lundberg moved to deny the appeal on the grounds that the ZA did not err or abuse discretion. Commissioners voted 3–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator’s LOD. The ZA also advised the appellant that the pragmatic next step to advance the project would be a project‑specific building permit; if the applicant disagrees with how state law applies, the ZA noted state court is the avenue for resolving state‑law disputes.
The denial closes the administrative appeal; the appellant can pursue the alternate administrative routes Teague outlined or seek judicial relief on state‑law questions.
