Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies protest appeal of 2443 Vallejo plumbing permit, urges enforcement to proceed
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 4–0 to deny a neighbor's challenge to a plumbing permit for 2443 Vallejo Street, finding the permit was validly issued while DBI pursues open notices of violation and enforcement steps to ensure work is corrected and inspected.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 9 denied an appeal from neighbor Andrew Alspaugh challenging a June 9 plumbing permit at 2443 Vallejo Street, saying the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) had not shown the permit was improperly issued.
Alspaugh told the board the permit description was inadequate, that expired permits were being used to close outstanding complaints and that the property owner had a history of unpermitted work and noncompliance. He argued the new permit appeared to be used to finalize work without addressing code violations and raised concerns about preferential treatment because of the permit holder’s business connections.
Permit holder representatives Anthony Rudd of Ocean Park Mechanical and owner Dwayne Carlson disputed Alspaugh’s characterization, said the plumbing work had been reworked under expired permits and that Ocean Park had the contract to finalize and record the final inspections.
DBI Chief Inspector Joe Duffy told commissioners that DBI had received multiple complaints (he cited 11 complaints in a recent period), issued one building notice of violation on July 8 because work exceeded permit scope, and that some complaints had been closed after permit renewal activity. Duffy said DBI had opened enforcement where warranted and that the plumbing permit in question appeared properly issued to allow inspectors back on site to complete work; he said some enforcement and notice-of-violation steps were still pending.
Board’s rationale and vote President Anne Lazarus and other commissioners said they had not heard new evidence that would overturn the department’s decision. The board's practical concern was that suspending the permit would prevent DBI from doing the inspections necessary to determine whether illegal or unsafe work had been concealed. On a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit, the board voted 4–0 to deny Alspaugh’s appeal so that DBI could proceed with inspections and enforcement.
What comes next DBI will continue its active enforcement and inspection schedule tied to the notice of violation, and the board urged the parties to pursue mediation or other neighbor-resolution routes. The department said it would follow up on any allegation of improper inspector conduct through its management chain.
