Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds 443 Cole Street permit, rejects HOA authorization challenge
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal challenging an alteration permit for 443 Cole Street, finding DBI and Planning had properly issued the over-the-counter building permit; vote was 4-0 to deny.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4-0 to deny an appeal by Jim Williamson and Kathy Coaseley challenging an alteration permit for 443 Cole Street (permit no. 202102094313), concluding that the permit had been properly issued and that disputes over homeowners association authorization were primarily private HOA matters.
Appellants’ counsel Jonathan Catherine argued the application lacked authorization from all property owners and raised concerns that the permit could disturb asbestos and lead paint because walls had been opened. He said work on the garage and electrical hookups involved common-area systems and that the contractor named on the application lacked qualifications for abatement.
Permit holder Azza Borum and her contractor said the work is interior to her unit, that a licensed contractor pulled building, electrical and plumbing permits, and that demolition began after the building permit issuance; Borum described attempts at mediation and characterized the appellants’ inspection demands as harassment. Contractor Level 8 disputed claims of lead paint or disturbance beyond fixture replacement.
Planning staff said the work was marked "not applicable" for planning review given its interior scope. DBI told the board the permit was properly issued over the counter to a licensed general contractor and noted the listed cost valuation ($15,000) appeared low for the scope but that inspection and additional fees would follow if the permit were reinstated. The board found no basis to overturn DBI’s issuance and denied the appeal.
Outcome: Commissioner Chang moved to deny the appeal; Commissioners Lazarus, Honda and Swig voted Aye and the motion carried 4-0. The building permit remains upheld and DBI staff said inspections and any required corrective fee adjustments would be handled through normal permitting procedures.
