[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6476900,"mediaKeyId","5716065-53608847fdad545dfb0db749b7b419a1","parentId",5716065,"title","Board denies appeal on structural revision at 1077 Fell Street; DBI finds permits meet code requirements","audioSeconds",3578,"startMs",6637000,"endMs",10215000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5716065-53608847fdad545dfb0db749b7b419a1&start=6637&end=10215","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5716065-53608847fdad545dfb0db749b7b419a1/thumbnail_6637000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6476900/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-denies-appeal-on-structural-revision-at-1077-Fell-Street-DBI-finds-permits-meet-code-requirements","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6476900-b4d10eae6be7efa76bc755d664eb02ed/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145631&Signature=cqC5G11GKpEFGAPKFpxEMMx~hjY0PS4zkuheZf5Oc3q2920aG50fTOOPuk3tLUfL5BtYxrfTNlleaO6Zs2d2Gk6W9meYwliymJFMhCjhRyXyZuDJMabJgzbjN81qFQ5Yr3E-v7H0TdUCSZABuTbOIiHy-eSFkaoBnCQrh~gqQbTazRArChZ~Zka79R9tc55iSlNAldCdn0KbZWA-6oIn6Dpl0q3yRjXzDulO2KvcBUwmNCsyfF53IsCfbemmiPMUxaEntpS0vw5j40SlUezUJTX3FeyTj4oew8Hncofd8J5bxnImndtuqd4-RHBHuHZO-zvccu~nf4VgpzlxcIm9iw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-09-03T00:00:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 3 denied an appeal of a Department of Building Inspection (DBI) alteration permit for 1077 Fell Street, concluding DBI’s review met the applicable code requirements and the permit should be reinstated.

The appellant, homeowner and neighbor Soumya Shastry, told the board she has lived above the renovation site since 2023 and presented a peer-review engineer who argued the project’s plans and calculations omit key shear-wall, diaphragm ties and drag-strut details and therefore could create lateral irregularities and life-safety risks. Structural engineer Detlev Doring said the cumulative work “does trigger a structural alteration” and that calculations and details for load transfer, diaphragm ties and foundations needed fuller design to treat new elements “as if this was a new building.”

DBI senior building inspector Joseph Ospital reviewed the permit history for the property and told the board the project began with an over-the-counter no-plans kitchen and bathroom remodel and advanced through multiple revision submittals that were reviewed by plan examiners and structural engineers. Ospital said DBI’s structural reviewer concluded the work did not constitute a substantial structural alteration that would trigger a mandatory lateral upgrade; instead, the plans reflected voluntary strengthening and met California Building Code and California Existing Building Code minimum requirements.

Owner representatives, contractor and structural reviewer for the permit said the work followed the approved plans and that inspections were performed. Owner Steven Huang said the project responded to revealed conditions and that additional field adjustments were permitted by DBI inspectors on site. Contractor and retrofit specialist Mark Barabagelata described required inspections and special testing and said his firm followed permit direction.

Why it matters: the appellant said the plans filed with the department do not represent the actual scope of demolition and structural strengthening seen on site and that DBI inspectors cannot rely solely on post-hoc documentation after walls are closed. The board weighed the competing professional opinions about whether the work required a mandatory structural retrofit versus voluntary strengthening under the existing building code.

Board action: after hearing testimony from DBI, the appellant’s peer reviewer, the permit holder and contractor, commissioners voted 4 to 0 to deny the appeal and reinstate the permit. DBI said it will continue complaint-driven inspections and noted a complaint remains open; the department’s field inspector recorded directions to “conduct additional permit research.”

Ending: DBI told the board that if the plumbing and electrical work (called out in a notice of violation) remain covered or noncompliant, inspectors will require reopening and correction before issuing final approvals; the inspection process remains the avenue for resolving shop-drawing, field-adjustment or concealed-work disputes.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player","oneSentenceSummary","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 3 denied an appeal of a DBI alteration permit for 1077 Fell Street, finding DBI reviewers and inspectors followed applicable code standards and recommending continued complaint-driven oversight.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6476905,"Board of Appeals upholds Entertainment Commission permit for Castle SF after split vote; commissioners flag ownership and enforcement concerns",6361,459000,6820000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5716065-53608847fdad545dfb0db749b7b419a1&start=459&end=6820","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5716065-53608847fdad545dfb0db749b7b419a1/thumbnail_459000.jpg","/articles/6476905/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-upholds-Entertainment-Commission-permit-for-Castle-SF-after-split-vote-commissioners-flag-ownership-and-enforcement-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6476905-7e9f144a53536834ddbec4d008d683d0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145631&Signature=V6j78ZwEqsFla8fG-z4Acp~8h3eYhPsNFJebV8klFP5sr83MmGChw0g3G5Mv1Rcz5WwzpFuHATkvlUib3bVpVCcy0PX~3fPHfxPb6ciKHlRPTo7-ZzTn8~YIz0t4muNj41FUyg6SftlPIrfc36-zgu4gpAmz1wP1KSdHBH1487rL-zwijsitPSF6VwCHwpX-2huQkfWlBrSvaMWDdGPRfRP9AysEKrNJvT2YDMlK9Rl9riDIkhiJQ2YDkmRo9KcCMvw6SG1lVEH~7nY0gm5s8zIk~GhGMkmtSYzi9pzwXJbpeu3et4--r58mGotal0bhxQnD7gvrNcgPpmGH13H16A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 3 declined to overturn the Entertainment Commission’s conditional grant of a place-of-entertainment (POE) and extended-hours premises (EHP) permit for Castle SF at 550 Fifteenth Street, leaving the permits in effect after a tied vote and the underlying decision was upheld by operation of law.

The board heard an appeal from Lorenzo Tenney, who argued the permit was issued on an incomplete or misleading record and that Creative Art Group’s ownership was disputed. Tenney’s attorney asked the board to suspend or remand the permit so the commission could reassess record evidence, including Secretary of State filings and a lease amendment that Tenney said removed his operating authority. “We don’t oppose a lawful nightlife. What we’re opposing is the issue in the manner it was issued,” Tenney’s counsel said during the hearing.

Why it matters: commissioners repeatedly flagged a narrow factual question — whether the Entertainment Commission had a “full and accurate description of ownership” under the police code when it issued the permit — and whether the commission had sufficient evidence to rely on corrected filings submitted under penalty of perjury. The commission and its staff said they had followed code requirements, relied on updated Secretary of State filings and an amended lease, and lacked authority to adjudicate private partnership disputes.

Caitlin Azevedo, deputy director of the San Francisco Entertainment Commission, told the board the commission “acted well within its statutory authority and followed all procedural and legal requirements to ensure permit integrity.” She described the permit review timeline: a joint application in May listed both Tenney and Chris Yazlik as 50% owners; in late June Yazlik submitted filings and an amended lease listing himself as sole owner; on Aug. 5 the commission conditionally granted the POE and EHP permits and the permits were issued Aug. 8 after outside agency sign-offs.

The hearing also focused on enforcement. Azevedo told the board that EC field staff had observed activity at Castle SF while the permits were under a stay, and that inspectors issued citations after observing entertainment and beverage service in violation of the stay. She said the venue received multiple citations within a week and that, if the permits are reinstated, the repeated violations “now meet the threshold for administrative suspension of permits.”

Permit holder Chris Yazlik said the dispute is a private disagreement with a former associate and that he corrected ownership filings under penalty of perjury when EC staff asked. He urged the board to deny the appeal and let the commission’s decision stand. “This appeal is not about public safety, zoning, or compliance. It’s simply about a result of a private dispute with a former associate,” Yazlik said.

Board deliberations turned on whether the commission’s reliance on corrected, signed filings and an amended lease was a sufficient factual basis for granting the permit despite Tenney’s objections and contemporaneous emails showing disagreement. Board members voiced concern about the ease of changing Secretary of State statements of information and about evidence that the permit holder continued operations while permits were suspended.

The board considered a motion to grant the appeal (which would have nullified the permit) and then a motion to deny the appeal. After a tie among commissioners, the board did not reach the votes needed to overturn the commission’s action; by operation of law the commission’s decision remains in effect.

What’s next: EC staff told the board the venue remains subject to continued regulatory scrutiny and that multiple citations observed while permits were stayed may support administrative suspension or other enforcement actions if noncompliance persists. The board did not remand the permit for further fact-finding; it left enforcement and any further permitting questions to the commission and to other appropriate city processes.

Ending note: The hearing highlighted limits of permit review: City agencies may accept documents signed under penalty of perjury as a basis for decisions, even where private ownership disputes persist, and the board emphasized that such private disputes may be more appropriately resolved in civil court while enforcement of code conditions is handled administratively.

","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 3 declined to overturn the Entertainment Commission’s conditional grant of place-of-entertainment and extended-hours permits for Castle SF at 550 Fifteenth Street, leaving the permits in effect after a tied vote and the underlying decision was upheld by operation of law.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6476896,"Board denies appeal at 14 Wilder Street; DBI to continue inspections after neighbor raises nuisance and unpermitted-work claims",5010,10801000,15811000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5716065-53608847fdad545dfb0db749b7b419a1&start=10801&end=15811","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5716065-53608847fdad545dfb0db749b7b419a1/thumbnail_10801000.jpg","/articles/6476896/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-denies-appeal-at-14-Wilder-Street-DBI-to-continue-inspections-after-neighbor-raises-nuisance-and-unpermitted-work-claims","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6476896-0b4916deee318ea4ea18dc6ae2a07b81/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145631&Signature=Z3srOMGFAXBWD1YHu3ZP6hlWBX0EYmyHAQN~czlHuToCaeMRGpj38qjF7lYo4PnnjQPFGBMva~VGzu-4sFpH4uSzFFJQlB3N5Q5uuWCKm3MnyhBjej9FHvbw7uCyvu9R0GTgFIEsKthEAgkC~gEliH99WvryMDZPkIwx9kL7AxgIliuja~p3qOBcj7Bga0a9ca-QYQssUEJ~c~yAXuNAdsmJnxsEEVwEkc17rdf~3~g-wveyu7oGlBh6jqO0Ki59ma0Y54Ym8XkKkUz6eeEKFSLKUo437m40HZAeUWHTBeH6~6gypb3X1JZNiAoaRxSxmQa-Pp5zhD0IORcyTFIrHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 3 denied an appeal from neighbors challenging an alteration permit for 14 Wilder Street, rejecting arguments that the permit failed to remedy extensive, unpermitted work at the property but directing that DBI’s complaint and enforcement process be used to address outstanding code issues.

Appellants Kimon and Lisa Manolius, represented by Hanson Bridle LLP, urged the board to reverse a DBI revision permit that, they said, purported to address a notice of violation but in practice approved only a single interior-wall revision while leaving substantial unpermitted exterior and interior work unaddressed. Appellants submitted videos and photos showing extensive demolition, electrical work, plumbing changes and an initial kitchen exhaust termination they asserted was too close to the Manoliuses’ deck and doors.

DBI senior inspector Joseph Ospital told the board the revision permit was issued after DBI determined the proposed scope required plans (because of layout change) and that the kitchen exhaust termination met the California Mechanical Code requirement that environmental air ducts terminate at least 3 feet from the property line and 10 feet from forced-air inlets. DBI also noted a site complaint and an open notice of violation that requires plumbing and electrical inspections and additional corrective steps.

Appellants’ expert consultant, who reviewed posted videos and permit materials, said the work exceeded the scope indicated on permit plans and that DBI inspectors had refused to accept video evidence showing the larger scope of demolition and wiring practice; the consultant urged a holistic review before final sign-off. The permit holder, homeowner Christopher Rodahal, and his representatives said the work has been performed under multiple, appropriate permits and inspections; they said some elements of the project were voluntary strengthening or field adjustments that DBI approved in the inspection process.

Why it matters: the case illustrates a common city enforcement problem: when uncovered demolition or mechanical or electrical work is visible at the time of complaint, DBI investigators can act immediately; when work has been covered, the department relies on complaint-driven reopenings or the permit-holder’s required inspections. Appellants said videos of demolition posted online showed unpermitted work that DBI did not address in the permit record; DBI said it responds to onsite evidence and documented violations and that the permit in question was evaluated against the mechanical code’s exhaust termination requirements.

Board action: after oral testimony and exchanges among DBI, appellant and the permit holder, the board voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold DBI’s issuance of the revision permit. Commissioners encouraged the appellants to continue to work through the DBI complaint process for unresolved issues and noted DBI’s existing notice of violation requires plumbing and electrical inspections before final approval.

Ending: DBI told the board it will continue its complaint-driven investigations; if inspections show concealed or noncompliant electrical or plumbing work, the department will require reopening and correction and impose any applicable monitoring fees or enforcement remedies.

","The Board of Appeals on Sept. 3 denied an appeal of a DBI alteration permit for 14 Wilder Street. Neighbors cited unpermitted demolition, moving of a kitchen exhaust and alleged nuisance impacts; DBI said the kitchen exhaust termination complied with mechanical code and called for complaint-driven follow-up on open notices of violation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board denies appeal on structural revision at 1077 Fell Street; DBI finds permits meet code requirements

Board of Appeals upholds Entertainment Commission permit for Castle SF after split vote; commissioners flag ownership and enforcement concerns

Board denies appeal at 14 Wilder Street; DBI to continue inspections after neighbor raises nuisance and unpermitted-work claims