Board of Appeals upholds Public Works’ revocation of trash‑enclosure permit at 2295 Market St.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals unanimously upheld a June 14 Public Works order revoking a minor sidewalk encroachment permit for a wooden trash enclosure at 2295 Market St., ruling that evidence presented to the department supported the revocation.

Public Works representative Javier Rivera told the board the encroachment had not been used as intended since the original tenant left in 2015 and that the department received a referral from Supervisor Rafael Mandelmann’s office and numerous 311 complaints. "We have no documented evidence showing use of the enclosure since 2015," Rivera said as part of Public Works’ summary of its enforcement review and the revocation hearing process.

The appeal was filed by a representative for the property owner, who said a new restaurant tenant signed a lease effective July 1 and that the owner has maintained the encroachment fee. The owner’s representative said the property restored a mural incorporating the enclosure and added lighting; he said the new tenant plans to service and secure the enclosure.

Supervisor Mandelmann’s legislative aide, Jackie Thornhill, urged the board to uphold the revocation. "This space has been vacant for over 2 years," Thornhill said, citing dozens of city cleanups and hundreds of 311 reports; she said the wooden enclosure had been used to shelter encampments and dangerous activity. Thornhill told commissioners that her office provided photographs and records documenting public‑health and public‑safety concerns.

Neighbors and adjacent property owners testified that the enclosure had contributed to rodent problems, encampments and safety issues. One neighbor said interior changes to the building could eliminate any need for an outside enclosure.

The property representative and architect said the site had multiple permits over time and that interior constraints justified prior use of an exterior enclosure. The Department of Building Inspection (DBI) confirmed a prior active service account and said DBI could inspect the site for compliance if the board allowed more time, but Public Works and several commissioners emphasized the large volume of complaints and that the city’s evaluation of current sidewalk conditions must guide the decision.

After questioning and deliberation, Vice President Jose Lopez moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Public Works order; the motion carried 5–0. The board recorded the outcome as a denial of the property owner’s appeal, which leaves in place the Public Works decision to remove the encroachment. Planning and Public Works told the board the property owner and a prospective tenant could reapply for a new encroachment if the interior layout and neighborhood conditions demonstrated a legitimate need and if the city’s 1‑team review concluded the placement would not impede public safety.

Next steps noted by department staff included removing the existing enclosure per the Public Works order and instructing the new business to consult Public Works’ 1‑team for any future application.