Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Permits 3467 19th topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds permits for 3467 Nineteenth St. but delays work until Jan. 5 and limits hours

Board of Appeals for the City and County of San Francisco · December 10, 2008
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

After extended debate about tenant rights and Ellis Act litigation, the Board of Appeals upheld permits for work at 3467 Nineteenth St. with conditions: suspension remains until Jan. 5, 2009, and work is restricted to weekdays 9 a.m.–5 p.m.; commissioners noted tenant hardship and urged parties to settle.

The Board of Appeals on Dec. 10 voted to uphold permits related to 3467 Nineteenth Street after extended argument about tenant protections tied to Ellis Act eviction litigation. Commissioners balanced property‑owner rights to repair and maintain their building with tenant concerns about displacement and disruption.

Tenant counsel Steve Collier asked the board to keep permits suspended while tenants pursue unlawful‑detainer and Ellis Act challenges, saying relocation checks had not been cashed and that tenants intended to litigate. Permit counsel and the permit holder argued that the work could be done with conditions to minimize disruption and that delaying maintenance indefinitely is not reasonable.

After discussion, the board voted to uphold the permits but condition execution: the suspension will remain until Jan. 5, 2009, and work under both permits will be limited to Monday–Friday, 9 a.m.–5 p.m. Commissioners also noted the parties could pursue settlement and that the owner had offered accommodations including allowing storage of some furniture on site.

The board recorded the vote and asked staff to incorporate the conditions in the formal notice of decision. Commissioners stressed the board’s decision does not resolve underlying court actions related to tenancy.