Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Demolition Jurisdiction topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Appeals board denies late-jurisdiction request for Bayshore demolition; Goodman family proceeds with Lowe’s work

San Francisco Board of Appeals · October 21, 2009
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 San Francisco Board of Appeals refused to take late jurisdiction over demolition permits covering the former Goodman’s Lumber site after hearing preservation arguments from a neighbor and legal objections from the property owners’ counsel; the board denied the jurisdiction request 5–0.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 2 declined to take late jurisdiction over building permits issued for work at the former Goodman's Lumber properties at 445 and 479 Bayshore Boulevard and 196 Loomis Street, leaving the Department of Building Inspection’s approvals intact.

Arlene Campbell, identified in the record as the requester, urged the board to halt demolition and preserve buildings she described as historic, citing neighborhood uses and cultural associations. ‘‘I was looking at them … the Umber Theater is historic,’’ Campbell said, asking the board to place the matter back on the hearings calendar or accept late jurisdiction.

Counsel for the Goodman family, Jim Rubin of Rubin & Junius, told the board the appeal arrived roughly three and a half months late and that the record lacks any showing of ‘‘excusable neglect’’ that would justify reopening the department action. Rubin said the owners and contractors have already spent more than $1,500,000 on demolition work and that construction is underway.

After brief deliberations, commissioners concluded the jurisdiction request failed to meet the standards for late filing. The board voted 5–0 to deny the jurisdiction request, with President Fung and all four commissioners concurring. A board announcement summarized the decision as denying jurisdiction and leaving the department’s permits in place.

The board did not adjudicate any historic-preservation claim on the merits; the denial means any remedy would be pursued through other administrative or judicial channels. The file notes the requester’s letter and the permit issue dates (permit issued 05/21/2009; appeal period lapsed 06/05/2009; jurisdiction request received 09/23/2009).

No one immediately announced plans for a rehearing in this matter; the board’s action was a procedural determination that the deadline for direct appeal had passed.