Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing request for 57 Eureka; appellants cite assessor records and procedure concerns
Summary
Appellants sought rehearing of a permit for 57 Eureka, saying historical directories and a confidential assessor's report show a long-standing two-household occupancy and alleging DBI did not follow required investigative steps; the board denied the rehearing 5-0.
The Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request for the permit issued at 57 Eureka Street (appeal 15-043), voting 5-0 to uphold the original decision.
An appellant argued the property has evidence in city directories from 1932 onward showing two households and said a confidential assessor's report (cited in testimony) was not considered by the permit holder in its response. The appellant asked the board to consider whether the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) followed due process in its unit-status determination and cited state labor and health-and-safety code sections as part of the basis for denying the permit.
DBI Inspector Joe Duffy and other department staff told the board the case was handled as a notice-of-violation complaint concerning an illegal dwelling unit, that the property profile lists it as an R-3 single-family dwelling, and that unit-count verification procedures differ from the complaint-driven inspections used here. Duffy said staff did not complete a separate unit-count verification because the matter reached DBI through complaint and subsequent permit work.
After hearing appellants, the permit holder, DBI and staff questions, Commissioner Fung moved to deny the rehearing request. The motion carried 5-0; the board instructed staff to release the notice of decision.
The board record includes references to a confidential assessor's report and to California labor law and Health and Safety Code sections as cited by the appellant; those statute references were presented in testimony and are noted in the record as asserted by the appellants.
