Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms permit at 22 Harper despite neighbors’ concerns about serial permitting
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a neighbor’s appeal of permits for 22 Harper Street, finding the permit properly issued while leaving DBI enforcement and fees for work exceeding permit scope to be assessed.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 8 denied an appeal by a neighboring resident and affirmed the issuance of a permit for 22 Harper Street, concluding the permit before the board had been properly issued even as staff described enforcement steps for work that exceeded earlier permits.
Appellant Courtney Brown told commissioners that 22 Harper’s owners submitted incomplete plans, built a roof deck not on the original plan set, and failed to display the 3/11 neighborhood‑notification poster. Brown asked the board to remove a top roof deck and to address what he described as serial permitting used to advance a larger project without proper public notice.
Permit‑holder counsel (identified in the record as Salisbury) acknowledged elements of the project were built beyond earlier permit scope, said the permittee is prepared to pay fees and offered to contribute funds for three street trees. Salisbury said planning staff reviewed and approved revised plans and that, in practice, staff rarely initiates mandatory discretionary review for projects of this size.
Senior Inspector Joe Duffy (Department of Building Inspection) said the value of work listed on one permit was $20,000; DBI recorded ten inspections and the department said it could calculate penalties for exceeding the scope of a permit (a two‑times valuation penalty, estimated by DBI in the low thousands). Planning Director representative Scott Sanchez explained the permit sequence and said the specific upper‑level roof deck cited by the appellant did not require a 3/11 neighborhood notification under the circumstances presented in the plans.
Commissioners debated whether denying the appeal or conditioning final permit sign‑off on DBI collection of fees and completion of enforcement steps would better address the apparent missteps. Vice President Frank Kung moved to deny the appeal and issue the permit; the board voted 3‑2 to deny the appeal and issue the permit. The board left DBI enforcement tasks and fee collection to the department, with staff noting outstanding corrective steps and potential penalties for work done outside the scope of approved permits.
The decision issues the permit the developer seeks but does not foreclose DBI from calculating and collecting penalties for work that exceeded permitted scope; DBI said any outstanding fees would need to be cleared before finalization.
