Board of Appeals: key votes — rehearing denied, permits revoked or upheld, Potrero tree removals approved with conditions

The San Francisco Board of Appeals met remotely on Aug. 19, 2020, and took formal action on a sequence of land‑use appeals and permit matters affecting housing and public right‑of‑way trees.

The board denied a rehearing request for Appeal 20‑038 (727 Natoma St.). Appellant Matthew Diamond alleged he had been denied equitable time to respond at the original hearing and pointed to claimed factual errors in the zoning administrator's testimony; planning and building inspectors stood by their prior findings. Commissioners concluded no new evidence or manifest injustice was presented and denied the rehearing (motion carried 4–0; Commissioner Eduardo Santa Cana did not participate on the vote because he had not reviewed the prior hearing materials).

The board voted to revoke an alteration permit in Appeal 20‑025 (44 Bond View St.). Planning and Building Inspection staff described notices of violation and unresolved questions about an unpermitted rear addition and an apparent lower‑level dwelling unit. The board granted the appellant’s request that the permit be revoked so the permit holder can pursue the appropriate path to legalize or remove the non‑conforming work.

On Appeal 20‑046 (3074 Pacific Ave.), the board considered arguments about historic‑resource impacts, CEQA timeliness and variance standards. Appellants raised Planning Code sections 172 and 188 and asked that the board continue the matter pending a CEQA determination; planning staff said the city’s environmental review officer found the CEQA appeal untimely and that the variance complied with the Secretary of the Interior standards for the historic resource. After extended testimony and questioning, the board denied the appeal and upheld the zoning administrator’s variance decision (motion carried 5–0).

On the Potrero HOPE SF Phase 2 appeals (20‑047 and 20‑048) — which challenged a Public Works order authorizing removal of nine street trees (including a large Italian stone pine on 20 Sixth Street) — the board granted the appeals but issued the order authorizing tree removals with conditions. The developer, Bridge Housing, and its engineers described grading, street‑reconstruction and underground utility conflicts that, they said, make retention of the large stone pine infeasible; the Bureau of Urban Forestry (BUF) and the developer committed to substantial replacement plantings in the public right‑of‑way. The board’s motion (approved 5–0) authorized removal of the stone pine and required that approximately 68 street trees be planted using 48‑inch‑box stock and that replacement and establishment measures be secured in the permit/plan set.

Votes at a glance - Minutes (Aug. 12, 2020): adopted 5–0. - Rehearing request, Appeal 20‑038 (727 Natoma St.): denied (motion to deny on basis of no new evidence/manifest injustice) — vote recorded as 4–0 (one commissioner did not participate). - Appeal 20‑025 (44 Bond View St.): appeal granted; the permit was revoked to allow appropriate remedial permitting/legalization. - Appeal 20‑046 (3074 Pacific Ave.): appeal denied; variance upheld (5–0). - Appeals 20‑047 & 20‑048 (Potrero HOPE SF tree removals): appeals granted and order issued to allow removals with conditions (including 48‑inch box replacement street trees; motion carried 5–0).

What the votes mean The board’s decisions leave in place the city’s zoning and building process while requiring the 44 Bond View project to return to the permitting path for legalization or removal of non‑conforming work. The Potrero decision allows the Phase 2 infrastructure and building work to proceed but adds specific tree‑replacement and establishment requirements intended to mitigate canopy loss. The variance outcome at 3074 Pacific confirms the zoning administrator’s view that the project met the five findings required for a variance and that the Secretary of the Interior standards were applied as part of the historic‑resource evaluation.

Next steps Several items noted the potential for further review: the 44 Bond View permit holder must work with DBI and Planning to resolve violations; the CEQA appeal referenced by the 3074 Pacific appellants may be pursued when timely; and the Potrero tree replacements and irrigation/establishment conditions will be enforced through permit conditions and public‑works inspection.