Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies late-jurisdiction request in Clay Hill window-permit dispute
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a request to take late jurisdiction over a Clay Hill Homeowners Association window-permit (permit no. 2027089807), finding no evidence the city intentionally or inadvertently caused a late appeal; the motion to deny passed 4–0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 4–0 vote denied a late-jurisdiction request from Clay Hill residents who said they learned after permits were issued that the homeowners association had pulled permits for an east-wall window alteration at 1250 Clay. Appellant Christina Ciudad told the Board she holds a prior window permit and that homeowners were never notified before the HOA pulled new permits: “Not only were permits approved with false information, but the homeowners with affected windows were never notified before, during, or after they were pulled,” she said.
Why it matters: The request asked the Board to accept a late appeal of Department of Building Inspection (DBI) permit no. 2027089807 (filed 07/08/2020, issued 08/28/2020), arguing the city’s process prevented timely appeals. If the Board had taken jurisdiction, it could have opened review of the permit process; instead, the Board concluded the dispute is between unit owners and their homeowners association.
What the record shows: The permit-holder’s representative, Mr. Pearlman, said DBI acted appropriately and that the HOA — not DBI — owns the project area and is responsible under the CC&Rs. “There are no grounds for granting this request as DBI acted appropriately in approving and notifying for the appeal,” he told commissioners. Planning Department staff said the permit’s scope would not have required planning review because the work is not visible from the street. DBI Acting Chief Building Inspector Joseph Duffy described the permit’s scope and timing (filed 07/08/2020; issued 08/28/2020) and said notification for this permit type is not required by the building code: “We issue over 60,000 permits a year … We don’t notify on all types of building permits. This project would not fall under something that we would notify,” Duffy said.
Board action and next steps: Vice President Daryl Honda moved to deny the rehearing/jurisdiction request on the ground that the city did not cause the late appeal; the motion carried 4–0. Commissioners said homeowners may pursue DBI complaints or HOA remedies as appropriate, but the Board will not accept late jurisdiction in this matter.
Additional context: Appellants said they received revised drawings on Sept. 23, 2020 indicating changes that would affect interior work; they argued interior work should have triggered notice. DBI and Planning staff responded that the permit’s scope as issued did not ordinarily trigger the city’s notification requirements. The DBI inspector noted the permit’s listed cost value was $30,000.
The Board moved on to the next agenda item without taking jurisdiction.
