Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Eviction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants jurisdiction on demolition and construction permits at 353 San Jose Avenue; tenants given short appeal window
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted jurisdiction over two permits at 353 San Jose Avenue after tenants said posted notices were unclear; the action creates a five‑day appeal period and prompted on‑the‑record negotiations about extra time for tenants to vacate.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 19 granted jurisdiction over two permits for demolition of an existing single‑story dwelling and construction of a four‑story building at 353 San Jose Avenue, giving the neighborhood requesters a five‑day window to file full appeals.
Tom Church and Marilyn Allen, representing tenants who have rented at the property for decades, told the board they misunderstood the posted permit notice and lost access to the SF Rent Board's assistance. Church said he and other tenants had been promised a one‑year vacancy notice by the owner but later received 60‑day notices; he asked the board to consider tenants' special needs when scheduling work.
Permit holder Adil Sheikh said the project was approved by the Planning Commission in 2011 and that he had intended to delay work; counsel for the permit holder said the required 60‑day notices pursuant to the rent ordinance had been prepared and moving expenses paid. Planning Department staff explained that the permits had been routed and issued in April 2013 after planning approval and Department of Building Inspection routing.
Commissioners debated whether to continue the matter to allow further negotiation or to grant jurisdiction. Several commissioners favored granting jurisdiction so that the appellants would have the ability to file a formal appeal; others urged the parties to negotiate. The board ultimately voted 4–0 to grant jurisdiction on both permits, creating a five‑day appeal period that ends the Monday following the hearing. Board members also encouraged the parties to try to reach a compromise on a vacate timeline; the permit holder indicated he could be flexible and discussed a 90‑day extension in addition to the statutory 60‑day notice during hallway discussions.
The board scheduled follow‑up availability on the next appeals calendar; commissioners noted that taking jurisdiction does not itself suspend a permit unless the board takes such an action later.
