Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Address Assignment Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies Shorenstein request to brand 875 Stevenson as 1 Tenth Street

San Francisco Board of Appeals · August 27, 2014
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals denied Shorenstein Properties’ appeal seeking the address ‘1 Tenth Street’ for 875 Stevenson, finding DBI’s denial reasonable under Administrative Bulletin AB035 and informational policy G-03; vote 3-1.

The Board of Appeals on Aug. 27 denied Shorenstein Properties’ request to assign the address 1 Tenth Street to its building at 875 Stevenson, concluding the Department of Building Inspection’s denial was reasonable under city address‑assignment rules.

Pat Buskovich, civil engineer representing Shorenstein, argued the project team had relied on prior counter guidance and branding uses of “1 Tenth Street” and said rebranding costs for dozens of tenants would be substantial. He asked the board to continue the case to obtain written support from a deputy director who he said had discussed the address with him earlier.

DBI staff explained that Central Permit Bureau manager Wei Fong and DBI policy require corner properties to receive corner numbering and that the building in question is not at the corner; DBI cited concerns about emergency response, future tenant improvements and the practicalities of city numbering. The board referenced DBI Administrative Bulletin AB035 and an informational sheet G‑03 (dated in April), and commissioners concluded the denial was reasonable under those documents.

Jeannie Raynor, a Shorenstein development manager, noted the building’s historic designation and said tenant mail and fire‑safety approvals were already in place under the ‘1 Tenth’ branding, but commissioners remained unconvinced that assigning a noncorner ‘1’ fit city numbering patterns. The motion to deny the appeal carried 3‑1.