Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals declines jurisdiction in tenant-notice dispute over Fourth Avenue demolition permit
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a jurisdiction request from a tenant disputing a DBI demolition permit, finding no majority to take jurisdiction despite the appellant—s citation of California Civil Code 1946 and recent San Francisco notice rules.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 13 declined a request from a tenant to take jurisdiction over a Department of Building Inspection (DBI) demolition permit for a unit at 2523/30 Fourth Avenue, after split statements from the tenant—s attorney, the permit holder and city staff.
Attorney David Crowe, representing appellant Ann Corrigan, told the board the family living in the unit since 2012 never received written notice that a demolition-related permit had been applied for and cited California Civil Code section 1946, which requires owners or agents to give written notice to occupants when applying for a demolition permit. Crowe argued the lack of notice deprived Ms. Corrigan of the opportunity to appeal and put her at risk of eviction.
Permit holder Stephen Chang said he served the tenant on Oct. 29 and that the tenant had more than a week to appeal but did not do so. Corey Teague of the Planning Department said a new San Francisco law requiring notice to all units, including unauthorized units, took effect Jan. 8 but that the permit issued in October was an over-the-counter approval that, at the time, did not require neighborhood notification and was not subject to discretionary review. DBI Inspector Joe Duffy said a complaint had been logged Oct. 5 but that inspectors were unable to gain entry and therefore no formal notice of violation had been written prior to the permit application.
Commissioner Frank Fung moved to grant jurisdiction on the basis that information had not been provided to the tenant. The motion did not carry: President Anne Lazarus voted No, Vice President Daryl Honda voted Aye and Commissioner Rick Swig voted No. With no other motion, the request was denied by default.
The board—s denial leaves in place DBI—s original permit handling; planning staff said the city—s newly enacted notice rule may affect future cases but does not operate retroactively to change the October permit issuance. The board—s record of the hearing shows disagreement among parties about the timing and content of notices and whether the state civil code or the new city rule should control retroactively.
The matter concluded without a formal order to DBI to reopen the permit; no appealable rehearing was granted on that item.
