Board of Appeals denies late‑filed jurisdiction request for Haight Street security gate; tie results in denial by operation of law

Vice President Anne Lazarus presided over a split decision Thursday after the Board considered a jurisdiction request from Connor Johnston, co‑owner of Burners on Haight, about notices of violation at 1685 and 1687 Haight Street. Johnston told the Board he installed a solid security gate after multiple break‑ins and that, in his view, city staff and the mayor’s office had signaled enforcement would be stayed while legislation to legalize such gates was considered.

Tina Tam, deputy zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the Board the property sits in the North of Panhandle Eligible Historic District and that exterior work requires preservation review. Tam said the department repeatedly advised the owner that a conditional process was required, that no legislation had been adopted or even drafted to permit the solid gates during the relevant period, and that the appellant failed to file a timely appeal within the 15‑day window after the notice of violation.

Commissioners debated whether email exchanges with the mayor’s office or other communications could reasonably have led the owner to believe enforcement was stayed during the 15‑day appeal period. Commissioner Jose Lopez questioned whether there had been instructions from the mayor’s office not to pursue enforcement; Tam replied she did not recall receiving such a directive and said the department had instead given operators more time (about eight months) to correct violations before issuing formal enforcement.

Vice President Lazarus moved to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city had not intentionally or inadvertently caused a late filing. The motion drew split votes: Commissioner Honda voted Aye and Commissioner Chang Aye, while Commissioner Lopez voted Nay. Because local rules require four votes to grant a jurisdiction request or to overturn a determination, the Board’s failure to reach the necessary threshold meant the request was denied by operation of law.

The denial leaves the underlying notices of violation and Planning’s determination in place. Board staff said that, under the rules, a different motion would be needed to grant jurisdiction but no such motion achieved the required four‑vote majority.