Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies multiple jurisdictional appeals, upholds variances and permits (March 16, 2016)
Summary
In a single session the board denied two jurisdictional requests, upheld variances at Sedoa Street and Webster Street, and denied appeals over three over‑the‑counter permits at Ninth Avenue. Most motions carried unanimously (4–0).
At its March 16 meeting the San Francisco Board of Appeals took a series of procedural and contested actions across multiple cases.
Key votes and outcomes: • Item 4 (jurisdiction request, rear deck at Ninth Avenue): The board denied the jurisdiction request, finding no city error in the December issuance of an over‑the‑counter deck permit. Motion carried 4–0.
• Item 5 (jurisdiction request, 575–577 Sixth Avenue): Appellant argued a tenant learned late that a permit had been approved to remove an illegal ground‑floor unit; Planning and DBI said notice procedures and applicable remedies supported denial of the jurisdictional request. Motion to deny carried 4–0.
• Item 7 (231 Sedoa Street rear shed variance): The board denied the appeal and upheld the variance after hearing extensive historical and inspection evidence about a rear structure that the variance holders traced to at least 1938. Motion carried 4–0.
• Items 9a–c (appeals to permits at 630A Ninth Avenue): The board denied the appeals to an alteration, electrical and plumbing permit issued over the counter, finding the permits within the scope of work described and properly issued; DBI and planning staff said the lower level is a story but not habitable space and that block‑book notice rules did not apply for the permits’ scope. Motion carried 4–0 for all three permits.
Across the session the board relied on testimony from the Planning Department (Scott Sanchez) and the Department of Building Inspection (Joe Duffy) to interpret code triggers for neighborhood notice, the scope of over‑the‑counter Form 8 permits and the evidentiary record for variances. Several matters involved disputed factual histories; the board generally resolved those disputes by either finding no department error (items 4 and 5, permits at item 9) or by upholding discretionary variance findings where staff and submitted records supported the decision (items 7 and 8).
