Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compliance Inspections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues contested Eighteenth Avenue fence and backyard work to Sept. 18 for DBI, Planning inspections
Summary
After testimony from the appellant and the permit holder and detailed input from DBI and Planning staff about missing site plans and potential unpermitted work, the Board continued the appeal for 1946 Eighteenth Ave to Sept. 18 to allow inspections and clarification of what work needs permits.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 7 continued an appeal over work at 1946 Eighteenth Avenue to Sept. 18 to give the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and Planning time to inspect the property and determine which elements require permitting.
Appellant Zhu Chen alleged the neighbor’s backyard renovations included a fence exceeding permitted height, removal of posts without permission, a new concrete landing and retaining walls, and other work done without required permits; he asked the board to revoke the permit issued June 18, 2019. "The owner of 1946 lied on their permit application," Chen said in his presentation, alleging missing information and unauthorized cutting of posts.
Permit holder Jonathan Park, a tenant, said the work was intended to make the rear yard safe and usable for his family and that they filed a permit on June 12 to comply with a DBI notice of violation; he said DBI inspector James O'Leary visited and measured the work. Park said some work was complete at the time of the site visit and expressed willingness to work with DBI on any remaining items.
Planning representative Scott Sanchez and DBI senior inspector Joe Duffy said the submitted plans lacked a site plan showing property lines and did not clearly show all work (stairs, retaining walls, concrete landing). Duffy said DBI has an open complaint and that additional elements (stairway, guardrail, retaining walls) likely require permits and engineer documentation. Duffy recommended starting over with a complete permit set or otherwise consolidating all work on a proper application and, if necessary, issuing notices tied to the open complaint.
Commissioner discussion weighed the interests of the permit holder (project complete) against the appellant’s concerns and DBI’s unresolved open complaint. Vice President Anne Lazarus moved to continue the appeal to Sept. 18 to allow DBI and Planning to inspect and determine needed permits; the motion carried 4–0.
