Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Decisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals: roundup of permit rulings, continuances and penalty decisions
Summary
The Board of Appeals handled multiple calendar items: Item 6 continued to Oct. 4, Item 11 permit revoked (per parties' request), Item 7 permit revoked to the call of the chair, Item 8 department penalties upheld, Item 9 penalty reduced to the minimum, and Item 10 continued to Oct. 18 for remediation and abatement.
At its Sept. 20 meeting the San Francisco Board of Appeals resolved several calendar matters, issuing a mix of continuances, revocations and penalty rulings.
Key outcomes:
- Item 6 (appeal VO-6079, 1043-45 Francisco Street) was continued at the request of counsel to October 4 so settlement discussions can conclude (motion carried unanimously).
- Item 11 (Valdez v. Department of Building Inspection, 2955 Sixth Avenue) was revoked by motion of Commissioner Garcia and the board (5-0) to allow the permit holder to seek a variance and clear the administrative record.
- Item 5 (25 Noe Street, Trevor Fuchs) was continued to the call of the chair to allow the appellant additional time to address refinancing and tenant impacts; the board clarified the appellant can request a calendar return when ready.
- Item 7 (Jose Pareda / Brighton Avenue) involved overlapping permits and neighborhood-notification questions; the board upheld the appeal and revoked or disapproved the first permit, instructing DBI and Planning to administratively process any fee credits and to use the second, more comprehensive permit if appropriate (5-0).
- Item 8 (electrical work penalty at 1309/141 Lake Street) resulted in denial of the appeal and imposition of the department's penalty at nine times the permit fee; commissioners cited the seriousness of unpermitted electrical work (5-0).
- Item 9 (Gloria Lomeli) involved a decades-old unpermitted addition; the board reduced the penalty to the minimum allowable (2x the fee) in light of the time elapsed and mitigating circumstances (5-0).
- Item 10 (Toa Quan, alleged manufacturing in a residential property) was continued to Oct. 18 to allow the appellant and Planning to abate the conditions and provide photographic evidence; the board asked parties to submit evidence in advance of any return hearing.
The board adjourned after disposition of the calendar. Several matters included explicit direction to city departments to prepare notices of decision, process refunds or credits where appropriate, and to assist appellants with next procedural steps.
