Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Votes at a glance: Board of Appeals decisions, Oct. 10 meeting
Summary
A roundup of formal actions at the San Francisco Board of Appeals meeting on Oct. 10, 2018, including permit approvals with conditions, denials of appeals and a continuance for a Bernal Heights variance to Nov. 14.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals issued several rulings Oct. 10 on permit appeals and related land‑use requests. Key outcomes from the session follow.
• 3255 Octavia Street (alteration permit; roof deck) — The board approved the revised permit on condition that unoccupied roof garden pavers at the front and rear be removed, the Title 24 table be corrected, and the permit be issued as a special‑conditions permit; the permit holder was directed to submit revised plans for staff review.
• 15 Allison Street (final inspection/alteration permit) — The board denied the appellant’s request to overturn DBI’s action; the department’s issuance of the final permit was upheld on the ground that the permit was properly issued.
• 39–41 Child Street (window replacement / condo conversion) — An owner seeking to legalize long‑standing vinyl windows was denied; Planning and DBI staff cited the condo‑conversion inspection and the department’s window‑replacement standards.
• 2722–2724 Folsom Street (CFC / unit‑count dispute) — After reviewing historical permits, CFCs and pre‑application documents, the board denied the appeal; Planning and DBI staff maintained that the official records support three legal units on the property.
• 575 Belvedere Street (horizontal addition) — Following extensive public comment and a presentation from the owner and project team, the board adopted revised plans dated Oct. 2, 2018, and approved issuance of the permit with the revisions as a special‑conditions permit.
• 1715 Alabama Street (mass‑reduction variance, Bernal Heights) — The board continued the variance request to Nov. 14 to allow the parties, neighbors and staff to meet, review revised materials and attempt to resolve outstanding concerns.
Votes were taken on the record during the meeting; where a vote tally was recorded in the transcript the board noted ayes or that a motion "passes." Several items were decided conditionally, requiring plan revisions and staff review before finalization.
These rulings reflect the board weighing written records, departmental standards and substantial public testimony in multiple contested neighborhood disputes.
