Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies appeal to suspend 555 Selby demolition permit sought to protect colony of cats
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal asking to suspend demolition at 555 Selby Street to preserve seven community cats, finding the appeal targeted the demolition permit rather than the site permit; permit holder representatives said the paved industrial site offers no permanent habitat and animals would move when construction begins.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 19 denied an appeal by Julian Lagos that sought to suspend the demolition permit for 555 Selby Street so a small colony of community cats could be preserved on site. The board voted 5–0 to deny the appeal after hearing testimony from the appellant, project representatives and animal‑care volunteers.
Julian Lagos, who said he has cared for the seven cats since 2014, asked the board to require the permit holder to modify demolition and construction plans to accommodate a small outdoor feeding area on the city‑owned site. "The pending demolition of the 555 Selby site will result in the destruction of the only home these cats have ever known," Lagos said. He urged the board to suspend the permit while the project team and the city implement accommodations.
Project representatives from Oryx Partners (development partner for the city’s Central Shops relocation) and Department of Public Works described the site as fully paved and in an industrial zone; they said abandoned vehicles where cats were sheltering are scheduled for removal and that the operational needs of a heavy‑vehicle maintenance facility (large trucks, tight turning radii and staging areas) make on‑site animal accommodation unsafe and infeasible. Laura Billings of Oryx Partners said the demolition schedule anticipated gates being locked and access ending April 29 and that construction activity at the merged Galvez/Selby campus would begin in early May.
Planning Department staff and DBI confirmed the demolition permit was issued after code review and CEQA clearance for the broader project was completed previously. Board members noted that the appellant had appealed the demolition permit rather than the underlying site permit that governs long‑term site uses; based on that procedural point and on staff presentations, Vice President Frank Fung moved to deny the appeal and issue the demolition permit. The motion carried 5–0.
Janice Ortega, an animal‑care volunteer, and other rescuers urged the board to find a compromise and referenced prior TNR (trap‑neuter‑release) collaborations at other city sites, but the board concluded the demolition permit alone did not create an enforceable site‑use accommodation and denied the appeal.
