Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lead Paint Mural Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds HVAC permit for DPH property, urges health department to address mural lead hazards
Summary
After hearing a video and testimony that a mural on a Department of Public Health building had peeling paint and lead‑positive chips near a children’s park, the San Francisco Board of Appeals denied the appellant’s request to suspend an HVAC structural permit but asked the executive director to send a letter urging DPH to abate code violations and follow up with DBI. 4–0 vote.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 3 denied an appeal seeking to suspend a Department of Public Health (DPH) building permit tied to rooftop HVAC supports, while urging the health department to address long‑standing maintenance and lead‑paint concerns raised by neighbors.
Christopher Seguin, the appellant, showed a short video and said the property at 2789‑20 Fifth Street — owned by DPH and facing Del Sol Public Park — has peeling paint, persistent graffiti and paint chips that tested positive for lead. “The lead paint and the peeling paint are violations of the San Francisco building code,” Seguin said, adding that children who use the adjacent park are at particular risk.
DPH project planner Max Buenwan told the board he did not handle routine maintenance or 311 complaints and that the mechanical permit under review — a structural support permit for roof‑mounted HVAC units — concerned separate, necessary work. “There’s no direct objection to the mechanical improvement to the building that the permit was applied for,” Buenwan said.
Deputy Director Joe Duffy of the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) said DBI’s records show open complaints about lead paint at the site. He described the HVAC‑support permit’s filing and issuance timeline and said the agency often processes maintenance‑level permits even when unrelated complaints are open; DBI staff, he said, would follow up with code‑enforcement and health‑department colleagues and consider a site inspection.
After questions from commissioners about whether an outstanding notice of violation (NOV) can block issuance of a permit, the board concluded the mechanical work was separate from the mural maintenance and lead‑abatement issues. The panel voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit but directed the executive director to write to DPH summarizing the hearing and strongly recommending abatement of any violations; Deputy Director Duffy was to be copied to coordinate DBI follow‑up.
The board’s action distinguishes between procedural remedies and unresolved public‑health allegations: it allowed the HVAC work to proceed while using the board’s influence to press DPH to address the reported lead hazards. DBI said any open NOVs would still need to be closed through permit work, inspections or enforcement actions.
Next steps: the executive director will send the requested correspondence to DPH; DBI said it will pursue the outstanding complaints and coordinate any required inspections or penalties before final sign‑off on related permits.
