Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds several permits, grants jurisdiction in late‑notice case and affirms tree removal
Summary
The Board of Appeals heard five contested items and took votes: it adopted revised plans and granted the appeal for 2472 Vallejo (granting permit on condition of revised plans), accepted a late jurisdiction request for 265 Oak, denied appeals on a tree removal at 1234 Lombard and an ADU at 1748 Keith, and denied neighbors’ appeal of the 4326 Irving vertical addition; all formal motions passed by unanimous or near‑unanimous votes.
At its May 19 meeting the Board of Appeals resolved multiple contested permit matters across San Francisco.
2472 Vallejo (Appeal 21‑015): Parties reported an agreement on revised plans that provide a 3‑foot light‑well setback. Planning and DBI staff said the May 19, 2021 revised plans addressed department comments and were code‑compliant. The board voted to grant the appeal and adopt the revised plan set (motion carried 3–0).
265 Oak (Jurisdiction request 21‑4): Jane Flurry sought leave to appeal a June 15, 2020 variance decision, saying she had not been mailed the decision letter and missed the 10‑day appeal deadline. Planning staff acknowledged an apparent oversight in mailing and the board granted the jurisdiction request (motion by Vice President Swig) on the basis that the city’s failure to notify caused the late filing; the two appeals will be consolidated for hearing (vote 3–0).
1234 Lombard (Appeal 21‑026): The appellant did not appear. Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry and the permit holder presented evidence of active property damage, risk to utilities and lack of feasible on‑site replacement. The board upheld Public Works’ order to remove the significant tree without replacement and denied the appeal (motion carried 3–0).
1748 Keith (Appeal 21‑023): Neighbors argued an ADU approval will eliminate on‑site parking and worsen safety/parking on a narrow block. Planning and DBI staff said the project complies with planning code (off‑street parking requirement had been removed by recent changes) and DBI noted an earlier stop‑work order and an active NOV for work without permit; the board denied the appeal and upheld the permit (motion carried 4–0).
4326 Irving (Appeal 21‑024): Neighbors challenged a vertical addition and rooftop decks, and alleged the developer had earlier agreed not to build a fourth story. The developer and Planning staff said the revised permit is code‑compliant, the planning commission reviewed and approved a modified project (reduced to a three‑unit expansion), and CEQA review was a categorical exemption that was not appealed. After public testimony from both sides and extended questioning, the board denied the appeal and upheld the vertical‑addition permit (motion carried 4–0).
These outcomes reflect the board’s de novo authority to review permits; in several cases the board cited agreement of the parties, planning and DBI’s finding of code compliance, or BUF’s safety recommendation as the basis for action. Where complaints involved procedural notice or work done without permits, the departments indicated follow‑up (penalty fees, NOV processes) as available enforcement tools.
