Board denies rehearing and one variance, continues Jackson appeal to Oct. 26; three votes recorded

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 10 recorded three formal actions: it continued appeal 16‑105 (3560 Jackson) to Oct. 26, 2016; it denied a rehearing request for appeal 15‑117 (2778 Green St.); and it upheld the zoning administrator’s denial of a variance seeking a lot split at 440–442 Vallejo St. (appeal 16‑103). All actions carried by unanimous recorded votes of the four members present.

Appeal 16‑105 (3560 Jackson): Applicant’s counsel Pat Puskovich requested a continuance to allow coordination with the Planning Department after new information suggested the work might qualify as a required second means of egress and might not require a variance. Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department confirmed the new information required review. Vice President Frank Fung moved to reschedule the item to Oct. 26 to allow parties and staff time to resolve outstanding issues; the board voted 4–0 to continue the matter.

Rehearing request — 2778 Green St. (appeal 15‑117): Appellant counsel Rich Elder argued the record shows foundation and shoring problems that present potential public‑safety risk and asked the board to rehear the July 20 decision. Permit holder counsel Tom Tunney said the rehearing standard requires new evidence or manifest injustice and that appellant had not met that standard. DBI staff confirmed an investigation is ongoing but noted that addenda to permits generally are not appealable. The board concluded it did not hear new evidence or manifest injustice and denied the rehearing request by a 4–0 vote.

Appeal 16‑103 — 440–442 Vallejo St.: Appellant Sangeeta Rao sought variances from minimum lot frontage, area and width to split a substandard lot into two lots. Planning staff explained access and frontage concerns and that the five findings required by Planning Code §305(c) were not met; staff also warned the split could facilitate loss of rent‑controlled housing. A tenant (Sam Shaw) spoke that he would likely be displaced if a condo conversion followed. The board found the appellant had not met the five findings and upheld the denial, 4–0.

Votes and next steps: The board’s votes are final actions from this meeting; continued items return to the calendar on the date chosen (3560 Jackson, Oct. 26). For matters that were granted or denied the Planning Department and DBI will carry out plan review, permit checks and any follow‑up required by the board’s adopted findings.