Board of Appeals denies rehearing request over ADA access dispute at 3516–3518 Sacramento St.

Vice President Alex Lundberg and the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request Feb. 21 from Ed Van Roden in Appeal 23‑068, a dispute over accessibility and permits for 3516–3518 Sacramento Street.

Van Roden told the board he “didn't feel that I received a fair hearing,” saying Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and planning representatives lacked full understanding of ADA rules and that new documents — including diagrams his structural engineer prepared showing possible elevator locations and photos suggesting work began before the permit was issued — amount to new evidence meriting a rehearing. He also cited state law, including Title 24, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act, arguing that failure to address these statutes in the original decision was a legal omission.

Louis Robles, the project architect, and DBI staff described the technical reasons the department granted an equivalent facilitation (an alternative to installing a commercial elevator). DBI's submission explained that the building contains steel moment frames, deep spread footings and retaining‑wall foundations and that installing a commercial elevator shaft would require excavation through critical grade beams and likely compromise the foundation system. As DBI stated in a letter read into the record, the occupancy and structural conditions date to earlier permits and “the project was approved correctly.”

Commissioners focused on the board’s rehearing standard, which requires either previously unavailable new evidence that could change the outcome or a showing of manifest injustice. Commissioner John Trezyna asked whether the diagram the appellant presented constituted new evidence; Van Roden said it was “brand new evidence.” DBI and planning staff disagreed, saying the documents and technical questions had been considered in prior reviews and that no new, decisive information had been introduced.

After discussion, Commissioner Rick Swig moved to deny the rehearing request. The motion passed 4–0. Vice President Lundberg said he recognized the appellant’s concerns about ADA access but that the record did not meet the threshold for rehearing. The board instructed parties that technical or safety questions about compliance or implementation remain subject to department review and enforcement.

Outcome: rehearing request denied; no change to the prior permit decision.