San Francisco Board of Appeals upholds multiple enforcement actions, splits a food-cart revocation

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 5, 2013 issued a string of final decisions on zoning, building and public-works appeals, including a split ruling on a contested mobile-food permit and an upheld zoning violation for a residential property.

The board voted unanimously to reschedule a variance hearing for 639 Peralta Avenue to July 10 after the appellant said she had received critical response materials too late to prepare. Commissioners also denied a rehearing request in Shipkowitz v. Zoning Administrator (349 Bank Street), finding that most material in the rehearing filing repeated issues already considered and did not meet the threshold for rehearing. Appellant Vicky Shipkowitz had argued the deck in question was “unprecedented” and a potential fire hazard; the board concluded there was not sufficient new evidence to reopen the case.

In a contested enforcement matter involving a mobile food vendor doing business as Sausage Slinger (James Stevens), the board split its ruling. Department of Public Works staff said an initial administrative error had mistakenly issued a permit showing 3 a.m. closing, later corrected to 1 a.m.; DPW received repeated complaints of late-night operation and moved to revoke the permit covering both listed locations. Residents submitted video evidence and testimony describing operation past the authorized hours. After discussion, the board upheld the revocation for the Sixteenth Street location but overruled the revocation for the 100 New Montgomery location, citing a lack of due process and insufficient evidence in the record for that separate location.

The Board also heard two appeals concerning notices of violation for freestanding ATMs installed without building permits. DBI Senior Inspector Joe Duffy told the board that ATMs, whether freestanding or through-the-wall, typically require building permits and must meet Americans with Disabilities Act clearances and anchorage requirements. The board voted unanimously to reduce the penalties in both cases to two times the regular fee after staff said many installations were later legalized and the department has discretion to reduce penalties where appropriate.

A long-running zoning case at 264 Dolores Street — brought by the Planning Department as a notice of violation for operating commercial activities out of a rent-controlled dwelling — was also considered. Planning staff described prior complaints, a November site visit that showed nonresidential features, Yelp reviews and online listings suggesting the property was being used for cooking classes, juice cleanses and studio rentals. Neighbors testified to repeated noise, late-night juicing equipment and deliveries of produce boxes. Appellant Nicole Wright disputed the characterization, saying she uses commercial kitchens for classes and that many services are referral-based. The board found the Planning Department’s evidence persuasive and upheld the notice of violation by vote.

Board President Chris Fong presided; Vice President Anne Lazarus and Commissioners Frank Fung, Darryl Honda and Arcelya Hurtado joined the votes. Board staff said decisions and notices of decision would be issued following the meeting.

“The vote is 5 to 0” was announced on multiple matters as clerks recorded roll calls and outcomes.

What happens next: the rescheduled variance will be heard July 10. The rehearing denial will prompt issuance of a notice of decision and order. The revocation split leaves the Sixteenth Street mobile-food permit revoked while the New Montgomery location is reinstated; ATM penalty reductions take effect as ordered; the notice of violation at 264 Dolores remains upheld, and enforcement or appeal rights proceed under standard timelines.