Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds Planning Department: specialty grocer at 507 Columbus not eligible for limited-use restaurant conversion

San Francisco Board of Appeals · March 10, 2021
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals denied a business-owner appeal seeking conversion of a specialty grocery at 507 Columbus Avenue to a restaurant under ordinance 182-20, citing planning code distinctions and precedent concerns.

On March 10 the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal from a business owner seeking a change of use at 507 Columbus Avenue that would allow in‑place alcohol service under a limited-use-to-restaurant conversion enacted by ordinance 182-20.

Appellant counsel Nick Cola argued the establishment functioned as a limited-use restaurant in practice and requested discretionary relief under Business & Tax Regulation Code §26a to allow the conversion, citing pandemic-era hardships. Planning staff (Scott Sanchez) reviewed the site's permit history and concluded the property is authorized as a specialty grocery with accessory takeout'a distinct land-use category under the planning code that is not included in the ordinance authorizing limited-use restaurant conversions.

The ordinance referenced (182-20) applies specifically to existing limited-use restaurants. Planning cautioned the board that granting the appellant's request would create precedent permitting other specialty groceries across the North Beach Special Use District to seek the same exception, a result the ordinance did not intend. Commissioners said they were sympathetic to the business'es economic struggles but concluded the planning code and the ordinance must be applied as written.

Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold the planning department's denial (finding the specialty grocery is not eligible for conversion under the cited ordinance and Planning Code §780.3); the motion passed 4-0. Planning staff and the board noted a legislative path exists if the appellant wants the ordinance amended.