Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Group Housing 555 Haight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals Upholds Planning Denial for 555 Haight After Heated Public Hearing
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–1 to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of a permit to operate 555 Haight as group housing with 40 beds, citing code violations and neighborhood public‑safety complaints; the decision leaves abatement actions and possible reapplication as next steps.
President Randall Knox and the Board of Appeals affirmed the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a permit allowing 555 Haight to operate as group housing with up to 40 beds, voting 4–1 to uphold the denial.
Planning Department senior planner Tina Tam told the board the planning commission denied the permit because the proposed density (about 40 beds) exceeded the planning code maximum of 24 beds for the zoning district and because staff had documented health, fire‑safety and nuisance concerns during inspections and a task‑force review. Tam said inspections found short stays by many guests and evidence the building was being used in part as short‑term lodging rather than long‑term housing.
Attorney Gabriel Levine, representing appellant Frank Swise, argued the property provides low‑cost housing and urged approval. Levine pointed to state policy favoring affordable housing and cited California’s anti‑NIMBY provisions, saying those policies support permitting housing that serves low‑income or disabled residents. Levine also said many residents live long‑term and that the building provides services used by providers such as UCSF referrals.
Neighbors and Section 14 parties presented the board with records, photographs and website screenshots they said showed short‑term advertising and frequent turnover. Section 14 counsel said the property has a history of repeated complaints to the Department of Building Inspection and open enforcement matters in fire and health divisions; neighbors described recurring noise, late‑night parties, cigarette butts thrown onto adjacent balconies, water leaks and repeated calls for police.
Public testimony was split: several residents and long‑term neighbors said the property constitutes a public nuisance that has harmed the Lower Haight neighborhood for years, while some long‑term residents and current occupants described it as an affordable, stabilized residence that provides essential transitional housing and supportive services.
Board deliberations focused on whether the permit, as proposed, complied with the planning code and whether the property owner had presented a credible plan to limit occupancy and address neighborhood concerns. Commissioners discussed a possible compromise path — reapplying with a reduced bed count and binding conditions — but several members said no evidence had been presented that the owner would reliably adhere to the restrictions. Vice President Michael Garcia moved to uphold planning’s denial; the motion passed 4–1, with Commissioner Holland dissenting.
The board’s action preserves DBI’s ongoing abatement process. Planning staff and DBI told the board that the owner may resubmit a different proposal that complies with the code (for example, a reduced‑occupancy plan) and that such a submittal could be considered. DBI also said enforcement and abatement actions will proceed while any new application is considered. The city supervisor’s office indicated it would be willing to help broker neighborhood discussions if the owner seeks to propose a substantially altered plan.
What happens next: The denial stands; DBI and the city attorney’s office will continue abatement actions unless and until a new compliant application is filed and any enforcement stay is negotiated. The owner may reapply to planning with a revised proposal.
