Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Safety DbI Investigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenants urge Board of Appeals to hold permit as DBI investigates dozens of complaints at 1624 Sacramento
Summary
Tenants and advocates told the Board of Appeals the landlord’s construction has produced numerous safety and habitability complaints — including alleged lead‑paint, debris and water intrusion — and asked the board to delay or revoke an ADU permit while DBI finishes investigations. DBI said the permit was properly issued and that 38 mostly duplicate complaints are under review; the board denied the appeal 4–0.
Tenants living at 1624 Sacramento told the San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 15 that months of construction and alleged mismanagement by the building’s owner have harmed residents and prompted numerous city complaints.
"Veritas is reckless, construction projects and building management here have exacerbated the housing crisis," Nancy, a tenant who identified herself at the hearing, told the board, citing photos, video and what she called continuing damage to units and health impacts. Brad Hearn of the Housing Rights Committee, who filed the appeal for tenants, said DBI had nine active tenant complaints going back to April and that the board should not restore or uphold a permit while investigations remain open.
DBI senior inspector Matthew Green told commissioners the permit to add two accessory dwelling units was reviewed by all required sections and issued on April 26, 2022, and that DBI has received about "38 complaints, mostly anonymous since 03/10/2022." He said staff have investigated those complaints, and that only one notice of violation had been issued so far for loose paint chips found in the rear yard. Green said DBI would continue to investigate and, where warranted, pursue code enforcement remedies.
Appellants asked the board to postpone action until DBI finished its inquiries. "If this landlord and its contractors cannot perform work in a safe, effective and healthy way, then that practice would continue with any future project," Hearn argued.
The property’s representative and permit-holder attorney said the specific ADU permit complied with planning and building codes and that some complaints reflected misunderstandings or separate work. They offered to set up neighborhood meetings and a contact for construction concerns.
After discussion, the board voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. Commissioners and DBI staff stressed that complaints about ongoing work remain appropriate for DBI’s complaint process, and DBI representatives said they would continue investigating the allegations.
The board’s decision upheld the current permit; DBI retains authority to pursue violations and additional enforcement if inspections confirm code failures.
