Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals grants jurisdiction request for 261 Dolores after daycare raises safety and notice concerns
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted a jurisdiction request for a disputed alteration permit at 261 Dolores Street after neighbors and Holy Family Day Home said they were not notified and raised safety and environmental concerns about converting interior space into more bedrooms. A five‑day appeal period opens.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 20 moved to consider a jurisdiction request for 261 Dolores Street after neighbors and operators of a nearby daycare said they were not notified about revisions that add eight bedrooms to a three‑unit building.
David Cincotta, representing Holy Family Day Home, told the board the project would increase the house from 10 bedrooms to 18 and that the Department of Building Inspection issued a categorical CEQA exemption without adequate notice. “This matter is not your normal jurisdiction request,” Cincotta said, arguing the scale of change and proximity to the preschool’s play area required review.
Donna Cahill, executive director of Holy Family Day Home, added that a flimsy fence separates vehicle maneuvering from the playground and said the center serves a mostly homeless and low‑income population. “We were not notified,” she said. Neighbors testified the development uses a narrow 7½‑foot driveway as the only access, that existing privacy screening was not provided and that serial permit renewals have obscured community input.
Permit counsel Eric Fausner said the property remains a three‑unit building and argued Planning Code section 3.11(b)(2) requires neighborhood notice only when the change of use is significant; he maintained the change was internal and did not alter use. Planning staff (Scott Sanchez) told commissioners that while the zoning district allows group housing, the number of bedrooms is not capped by the code and that use is determined by how the unit operates in practice.
After discussion about the permit history, environmental review and parking/turnaround design, Vice President Frank Fung moved to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that “further disclosure should have been made.” The board voted 5‑0 to grant jurisdiction, opening a new five‑calendar‑day appeal period starting the next day.
The decision does not decide the permit’s merits; it only allows the Board to hear the appeal. The board instructed staff on next steps for notice and the appeal timeline.
