Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals roundup: NextG findings adopted, jurisdiction granted, mixed rulings on permits
Summary
At its April 20 meeting the Board adopted findings in a NextG wireless‑box appeal, granted jurisdiction to an appellant who said he was misled by city staff, denied a rehearing appeal over a sign removal, and rejected a fraud challenge to a residential remodel permit. Several items were decided by recorded votes.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals handled a range of smaller but substantive agenda items at its April 20 meeting, adopting and deciding multiple appeals and jurisdiction requests.
NextG Networks — 15620 Seventh Avenue (Item 4A): The board adopted findings in appeal 11‑4 related to a wireless box permit issued to NextG Networks of California Inc. NextG asked for small corrections to the draft findings (including the company name), clarified that certain power equipment lies outside the scope of the wireless permit and requested that the record reflect that they hold required certificates. Appellant Jeff Cooper argued DPW and Planning should have considered supporting equipment integral to the installation. After discussion, the Board adopted the findings with the corrected company name; the motion passed unanimously.
Lower Terrace jurisdiction (Item 4B): Jim Flanagan asked the board to take jurisdiction over wireless box permit 10WR‑0079 (124 Lower Terrace), saying he had been mistakenly told by a city official that he had no right to appeal and first learned of the work only after construction began. The board found that an inadvertent communication by a city official had misled him and granted jurisdiction; Flanagan was given five days to file an appeal (the appeal period was set to close April 25).
Jones Street jurisdiction (Item 4C): The board denied a jurisdiction request concerning permit application 201102029512 (1550/1552 Jones Street) after reviewing the permit holder’s brief and the requester’s evidence; the motion to deny passed 5‑0.
Sign removal rehearing — Virginia Ramos (Item 5): The board reheard an appeal about removal of freestanding advertising signs and whether the property owner voluntarily relinquished sign rights. Appellant counsel Janet Ferrell argued the owner lacked knowledge and alleged signature irregularities; CBS Outdoors and Planning described differing procedures (notice of requirements vs. notice of violations). After deliberation commissioners voted 3‑2 to deny the appeal and uphold the department’s action.
Residential permit dispute — 2336A Jones (Item 8): Appellant representatives raised fraud allegations claiming drawings presented as "existing" matched the proposed plans. DBI inspection staff visited the property, reviewed active permits and reported that the rear porch appeared existing and that the work was generally covered by active permits. Planning staff reviewed aerial and Sanborn maps that showed a rear obstruction consistent with a porch. The board found insufficient evidence of fraud and denied the appeal, upholding the permit by a 5‑0 vote.
Taken together, these actions show the board weighing both procedural jurisdiction issues and substantive permitting and planning disputes. Several matters resulted in votes that direct follow‑up by DBI or the permit holders (fee reconciliation, filing requirements, or adoption of corrected findings).
