Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use 770 Eighteenth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts city-attorney findings on 770 Eighteenth Avenue in 3–2 vote
Summary
After neighbor testimony and lengthy procedural debate, the Board of Appeals adopted the city attorney's findings on a contested 770 Eighteenth Avenue project by a 3–2 vote, rejecting some neighbors’ concerns about due process and evidence discrepancies in the draft findings.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 16 adopted the city attorney’s prepared findings for a contested project at 770 Eighteenth Avenue, approving the board’s prior decision by a 3–2 roll-call vote after extended public testimony and procedural debate.
Jan Fratton, counsel for the project sponsor, asked the board to remove or narrow conditions the Planning Commission had imposed, arguing those conditions were stricter than the city’s standard policy and would unnecessarily restrict use of the Ground Floor. Neighbors including Aileen Cofino and Elena Rogan testified they had not been properly noticed and pointed to inconsistencies in the draft findings and record dates.
Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt the findings as prepared by the city attorney. Vice President Fung and President Garcia voted in favor; Commissioner Goh and Commissioner Mandelmann opposed adoption; Commissioner Peterson voted to adopt, producing a 3–2 margin.
Throughout debate commissioners disputed the legal effect of an earlier vote, whether an adoption of findings required three or four votes when members change their prior positions, and whether the project should have been subject to environmental review or rezoning. Planning staff and the city attorney explained that the board retained jurisdiction over the matter and that the findings documented the board’s prior action. Planning staff reiterated that certain conditions were imposed to discourage Ground Floor conversions to separate dwelling units.
What it means: Adoption of the findings finalizes the board’s prior decision on the permit with the conditions as drafted by the city attorney; neighbors’ procedural objections and requests to change conditions did not prevail.
