Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 407a 30th St Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies neighborhood appeals of fence and walkway permits at 407A 30th Street; departments to follow up on other enforcement claims
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied two appeals of permits for an 8‑foot fence and a walkway trench at 407A 30th Street on Aug. 24, 2016, finding the permits were properly issued; the board and departments agreed additional investigations and potential enforcement work on other permits associated with the property should proceed outside the appeals process.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 24, 2016, denied two appeals brought by neighbor Warren (Rennie) Saunders challenging an 8‑foot fence permit and a trench/walkway excavation permit for property at 407A 30th Street, concluding the two permits before the board were properly issued but directing DBI and Planning to pursue outstanding enforcement and review of other permits as appropriate.
Appellants’ counsel Denise Ledbetter and appellant Rennie Saunders told the board they believed multiple prior permits had vested improperly, that substantial demolition and reframing had occurred without appropriate planning review, and that the property’s cumulative work had not been adequately enforced by DBI. Neighbors described construction noise, blocked parking, a perceived increase in rats and other quality‑of‑life impacts, and urged stronger enforcement. Saunders said he had received a $1,000 notice and fine for an allegedly unpermitted hot tub installation on his property, which he cited as inconsistent enforcement.
Permit holder Alex Schwartzman said he had redesigned the fence to be entirely on his lot after receiving a partial survey, that the walkway permit covered the walkway (not stairs), and that he had followed DBI and Planning intake direction when revising plans and pulling revision permits. Planning and DBI staff explained which permits in this matter required planning review and which did not; they said central enforcement staff were investigating allegations about siding, framing and other prior work and that additional permits or stop‑work orders might be required if enforcement findings supported them.
After substantial public comment, Commissioner Lazarus moved to deny both appeals and approve the permits on the basis they were properly issued. The motion passed 4–0. The board emphasized that the appeals before it were limited to the two permits on the agenda and that the departments would pursue remaining enforcement and planning matters separately.
