Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Calendar Decisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals: continuances, findings and permits — sign continuance, Fulton license condition, upheld permits
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals approved or modified several findings and rulings across its calendar: adopted findings for multiple appeals, denied a late-jurisdiction request, continued a sign-ownership matter to Dec. 6, and upheld a contested permit for 361 Elsie Street (3'to'2).
At its Oct. 19 meeting the San Francisco Board of Appeals resolved several routine and contested items across a full calendar, adopting amended findings in multiple appeals, denying a late-jurisdiction request and resolving contested building-permit disputes.
Notable actions and votes
• Sign-structure appeal (5040 Sixth Street): The zoning administrator requested a continuance to review newly released inventories and clarify who holds standing to appeal a sign replacement matter after questions surfaced about whether ADS or San Francisco Signs LLC was the owner or lessee. After argument from counsel and public comment, the board agreed to continue that item to Dec. 6 so staff could supply the requested documents and allow rebuttal submissions. The board set deadlines for planning and rebuttal filings before the rescheduled hearing.
• 1302 Fulton (alcohol-license reinstatement): Commissioners amended the draft findings to remove the word "dormant" from a finding and clarified the condition about permitted beverage sales after debate about whether the condition should restrict "sake" only or "sake and related rice wines." The board adopted the findings as amended.
• Jurisdiction request denied (226 A Oneida Avenue): A neighbor, Preet Banes, asked the board to accept a late appeal to a building permit. Planning records and a radius mailing list presented by the permit holder indicated notice had been mailed in June 2005; the board voted 5-0 to deny the late-jurisdiction request after finding the ordinary noticing procedures had likely occurred.
• Tenants-union appeals and findings (multiple addresses, incl. 734 Bush and 625 Taylor): The board adopted findings and conditions addressing tenant disruption, hazardous-material reporting and a 90-day work limit after hearing testimony from tenant representatives about prolonged remodeling impacts. Commissioners accepted changes to language describing impacts (for example replacing "inconvenience" with stronger terms in some paragraphs) and adopted conditions requiring remediation plans and reports to city agencies.
• 361 Elsie Street (Ginsburg v. Mendez): After contested technical testimony from structural and geotechnical engineers about temporary shoring, rotted wood and whether peer review had fully addressed risks, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit issued to the project sponsor. Commissioners recorded concerns about the temporary nature of the field repair but cited extensive plan review and peer-review involvement in reaching their decision.
Why these rulings matter: Taken together the actions illustrate the board's balancing of neighborhood concerns, technical safety reviews, and procedural fairness. The board showed willingness to give staff time to resolve record questions (sign-structure continuance) while also relying on departmental plan checks and peer review in technical permit disputes (361 Elsie).
What to watch: The Dec. 6 rescheduling of the sign-structure findings and the standard administrative rehearing windows for several decisions (including the Green Cross matter) could prompt additional filings or follow-up hearings.
