Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DBI alteration permit at 2363/30 Second Avenue over neighbors’ objections
Summary
The Board denied an appeal from nearby residents concerned about parking, foundations and neighborhood character and upheld the over‑the‑counter DBI permit for interior work and a modest deck extension at 2363/30 Second Avenue; the permit carries a DBI suspension/complaint for staff follow‑up.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 11 denied an appeal by neighbors challenging a Department of Building Inspection permit for alterations at 2363/30 Second Avenue and upheld the permit.
Appellants — represented by attorney Warner Berry and resident Janet Cochran — said the proposed work would worsen longstanding parking shortages, threaten century‑old foundations, reduce privacy and could lead to conversion into multiple units. Cochran said many neighbors are on fixed incomes and stressed foundation and livability concerns.
Property owner Gerald Lee stated he bought the house to accommodate his family, described the interior renovations as rooms‑down work and said exterior changes were minimal (a modest, code‑compliant deck enlargement and a side door for fire egress). Planning and DBI staff reviewed the plans and said the scope fit RH‑1 over‑the‑counter approvals: Planning staff said the work was consistent with the application; DBI Inspector Joe Duffy described the permit as an over‑the‑counter approval that took several months to process and said there is an open complaint and a notice of violation that has resulted in a suspension; DBI will assign an inspector for follow‑up.
Neighbors and merchants testified about parking strain on the block and asked the board to account for cumulative neighborhood impacts. Several commissioners noted communication gaps between the project sponsor and neighbors and urged the permit holder to consult neighbors, but found the plans and staff findings did not show code noncompliance.
Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. On roll call the motion passed with four ayes, one absence. The board advised the permit holder to work with DBI and Planning if there are implementation questions and noted the department’s suspension and complaint file for further inspection.
The DBI suspension remains part of the record and would require district inspector involvement if work resumes; Planning reiterated that one enclosed parking space is required in‑building and that parking in the front setback would not meet code.
