San Francisco Board of Appeals issues rulings on permits and tobacco suspensions; several matters continued

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 23 resolved multiple permit disputes and enforcement cases, while continuing at least one high-stakes demolition matter for further review.

The board overruled the Department of Police revocation of Sandra Lane’s antique-shop permit (Muzzy’s Attic) on the condition that she pay outstanding fees to the Treasurer-Tax-Collector and submit proof to the Permit Bureau at 850 Bryant. Commissioner Knox recused himself from that vote; the motion carried 4–0 with Knox recorded as recused.

On a contested matter affecting India Basin, the board granted an appeal filed by the India Basin Neighborhood Association challenging a building permit for 845–855 Hudson Ave. City attorneys and planning staff told the board that interim controls had been reenacted after the permit was issued and that the property now requires conditional-use authorization, which lies outside the Board of Appeals’ jurisdiction. Vice President Albright moved to grant the appeal and deny the permit; the motion passed unanimously and the permit was revoked with a finding that the board lacked jurisdiction under the interim controls.

The board denied a rehearing request from Dynamic Acupuncture and Acupressure Clinic (266 Sutter St.), finding no new evidence or manifest injustice to justify reopening the prior decision.

The board adopted amended findings in a variance case at 78 Peralta Ave. Commissioners debated whether language in the draft findings implied permission to use an existing curb cut for front-setback parking; the board struck specified sentences in findings 1(a) and 4(a) and adopted the remainder by a 4–1 vote.

On a separate, potentially consequential matter, the board continued an unlawful-residential-demolition hearing involving property at 83440 Fourth Ave. City staff told the board they had only just received revised plans and needed more time to compare the proposed replacement structure with the previously approved project; neighbors reported ongoing safety concerns. Commissioner Fung moved to continue to Feb. 6 and to require written updates to all parties; the motion carried 4–0.

The board also approved a negotiated settlement in Appeal O7-200 concerning several Bartlett Street properties, upholding the permit but ordering that a suspension remain in place through Oct. 1 to protect tenants during an Ellis Act notice period.

Tobacco enforcement: The board heard two separate suspension appeals from the Department of Public Health. In the Safeway case (145 Jackson St.), DPH sought a 15-day suspension after a decoy under age 18 was sold cigarettes. Safeway’s counsel characterized the incident as an unusual mistake during a busy rush period by a clerk on her first day and sought a reduction; the board upheld the 15-day suspension by a 4–0 vote.

In a second tobacco case at Press Relay (555 California St.), the owner’s counsel described a voluntary 15-day suspension and called the underlying incident ‘‘human error.’’ The board reduced a standing 30-day suspension to 15 days and upheld the department’s enforcement in principle.

Several other calendar-management items were handled (one appeal rescheduled to March 12; one withdrawn appeal noted), and one pending appeal was placed on the call of the chair while staff locate DBI paperwork showing whether the permit was administratively canceled.

The board’s decisions split between administrative resolution, continuance for further review, and enforcement upheld or modified; several outcomes are contingent on follow-up actions (payment of fees, submittal of proof, or further planning department review).