Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dbi 14 Wilder topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies appeal at 14 Wilder Street; DBI to continue inspections after neighbor raises nuisance and unpermitted-work claims
Summary
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.
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.
