Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Notice And Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies K Group request to reopen appeal over 162 Carl Street permit
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 5-0 on Nov. 20 to deny a jurisdiction request from K Group LLC, which sought to reopen the appeal window for a 2017 residential permit at 162 Carl Street. Planning and building staff said notices were mailed using assessor records; requesters said they did not receive timely owner notice.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 20 denied a petition by K Group LLC to reopen the appeal window for a building permit issued for 162 Carl Street, finding the city had not intentionally or inadvertently failed to notify the property owners.
Phil Kearney and his sister Susan Carney told the board they learned only recently that a 2017 permit to remodel 162 Carl Street (issued by the Department of Building Inspection) could affect their property and said notice in the assessor and mailing records had been incorrect. Kearney said the work could force tenants out, block light and ventilation, and require thousands of dollars of repairs to adapt adjoining units.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department and Joe Duffy of the Department of Building Inspection told the board the departments followed standard procedures. Planning staff said a 311 neighborhood notice was mailed to owners and occupants within 150 feet and a bright orange poster was posted on the property during the 30-day posting period; DBI said it used assessor records for mailing addresses and confirmed the structural notice was sent to 166 Carl Street.
Duffy told commissioners that property-line windows are not protected under design guidelines and that vents that improperly discharge onto an adjacent property must be rerouted; he also described the permit at issue as a properly issued soft-story/structural permit that qualifies for DBI’s renewal process, not a reissuance solely because of ownership change.
After questions about whether owners had updated mailing addresses, Vice President Anne Lazarus moved to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city did not cause the requester to miss the appeal window. The board voted 5-0 to deny the request.
What it means: The board concluded departments relied on assessor records and posted notices as required. The denial leaves the underlying building permit intact; the appellants can pursue other administrative or civil remedies but the board declined to reopen the appeal period for this permit.
Next steps: The board record notes the parties may pursue other channels (for example, enforcement with DBI on vents or tenant-landlord remedies), but the jurisdiction request to reopen the appeal window was denied.
