Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals revokes three building permits for 20 Villa Terrace, finds applications incomplete
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted to revoke three permits issued for work at 20 Villa Terrace after the board found applications incomplete and inaccurate; the decision followed testimony from a former resident who said question 24 was left blank and that the permits should be reissued.
George Gomes, a former resident of 20 Villa Terrace, told the Board of Appeals that the building permits for work on his former unit were invalid because the permit application was incomplete, specifically failing to answer question 24 about occupancy. Gomes told the board the incomplete application deprived him of due process and asked the board to require the permit holder to file a new, accurate application.
Department of Building Inspection staff reviewed the permit and identified some blank fields, but characterized the omissions as relatively minor. Commissioners debated whether overturning permits would provide practical relief to Gomes, noting the tenant had already been displaced. Legal staff told commissioners the board’s authority is limited and that any finding should be tied to a legal basis such as an application that was “incomplete and inaccurate.”
Commissioner Randall Knox moved to revoke all three permits for the property, with a finding that the applications were incomplete and inaccurate. The motion passed on a roll call vote. President Michael Garcia and Commissioner Tanya Peterson voted in favor; Commissioner Robert Holland was absent at that vote. The board ordered the permits revoked and directed any further procedural findings to be recorded.
The revocation means the permit holder must reapply and obtain new approvals for the work affected by the revoked permits; DBI staff said accessory permits that had already been signed off might not be suspendable but the primary permits under appeal were suspended or revoked. The board did not impose financial penalties in its action.
The board’s decision rests on its determination that the permit paperwork did not meet the department’s application requirements and therefore the permits were improperly issued. The matter concluded with the revocation recorded; parties may pursue any additional remedies available through the usual administrative or judicial channels.
