Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Presidio topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies late-jurisdiction requests for variances at 104–114 Presidio Avenue
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 21 denied petitions asking it to take late jurisdiction over a 2010 variance and a 2011 building permit for 104–114 Presidio Ave., finding no convincing evidence that neighborhood notice was defective.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Wednesday denied a request to take late jurisdiction over a variance (decision 2010.0221V) and a related building permit for 104–114 Presidio Avenue, concluding petitioners had not shown inadequate notice.
The petitioners, represented in remarks at the hearing by Bob Hanadi, told the board they never received neighborhood notices and said the project’s enclosure of two large light wells would block light and air to adjacent homes. Hanadi said mail had been routed to another address while the developer's team occupied the petitioners’ building, and asked the board to reopen the appeal window.
Project counsel Jim Rubin and architect Louis Butler replied that the petition was filed long after the applicable deadlines and that the project sponsor had engaged in repeated outreach and provided records to document notices and meetings. Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department described the standard notice processes used in these cases — a 300-foot variance notice and a 150-foot Section 3.11 neighborhood notice that includes plans — and told commissioners that planning records showed multiple notifications and file entries, including a 02/2009 review stamp that suggested prior awareness by the petitioners.
In deliberations, commissioners questioned why the petitioners waited months or more than a year to raise jurisdiction, noting the record contained affidavits and other exhibits showing notices were prepared and mailed. Commissioner Frank Fung moved to deny both jurisdiction requests; the board voted 5–0 to deny jurisdiction for the variance and the building permit, ending the petitioners’ effort to reopen those approvals.
The denial means the Planning Department’s prior variance and the building permit for the project remain in effect. The board directed staff to continue handling any separate compliance questions through the normal department processes.
The matter was heard as Item 4B on the Sept. 21 agenda; the board’s formal action was a motion to deny jurisdiction that passed unanimously.
