Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues neighbor appeal over 44 Bond View to July 1 for plan corrections
Summary
Neighbors appealed a permit to legalize a rear expansion at 44 Bond View Street, arguing the submitted plans misrepresent existing conditions and allow an oversized bay; the Board continued the matter to July 1 and directed the permit holder to document existing conditions and remove the deck from the current scope.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued an appeal of a building permit for 44 Bond View Street on May 27, saying the permit holder must correct plan discrepancies and work with city planning and building staff before the case returns.
Neighbor Robert Blaseige told the board that the house next door includes an unpermitted rear addition and a deck that, as built, projects farther into the required rear yard than the permit plans show. He said photographs and historical records show the neighboring house’s bay extends about 5 feet into the rear yard, exceeding the planning code’s allowance for bay projections and the 2012 variance his own property relied on.
Arden Chan, representing permit holder Jianyu Zhao, said the structure existed for years and that the current owner relied on historical evidence and prior approvals when filing the permit. Planning staff and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) told commissioners they could not definitively show the prior permit history was complete but that recent permit plans had been reviewed. DBI Inspector Joe Duffy said the site work that prompted complaints had been inspected; he flagged several plan shortcomings but said most could be corrected and that a soils or engineer report could be requested if needed.
Commissioners asked the permit holder to revise the plans to show the existing conditions accurately — including any removed stairs or original deck — and to split the deck work into a separate permit that requires a 10‑day public notice. President Anne Lazarus and Planning’s Scott Sanchez said the board expects the permit holder to document the pre‑existing site conditions as the baseline for any approval. The board voted unanimously to continue the matter to July 1 so Planning and DBI can confirm the revised, stamped plans.
Next steps: The permit holder must work with DBI and Planning to submit corrected, approvable plans documenting existing conditions and to remove the deck from the current scope so it can be noticed separately. The board scheduled the item for July 1.
