Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies homeowner appeal, upholds Quesada Ave permit 5–0
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to deny Carolyn Gage’s appeal of a February 13, 2020 alteration permit for 1435 Quesada Ave, finding the permit was validly issued for a 90 sq ft kitchen remodel, electrical upgrades and specified dry‑rot repairs.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 5–0 vote denied an appeal by Carolyn Gage and upheld an alteration permit for 1435 Quesada Avenue that was issued on Feb. 13, 2020. President Anne Lazarus and four other commissioners voted to deny the appeal after hearing testimony from the appellant, the permit holder’s attorney and Department of Building Inspection staff.
Appellant Carolyn Gage said she has lived in the house for more than 50 years and objected to what she described as gentrifying changes and to replacing traditional materials for non‑hazardous work. “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” Gage told the board, adding she believes the property was taken from her and that she is continuing legal action.
The permit holder’s attorney argued there were no legal grounds for the appeal, saying the current owner is entitled to make permitted modifications and that the permits were properly obtained to address electrical hazards and dry rot. DBI Senior Building Inspector Joe Duffy told the board the permit (202002134409) was filed and issued on 02/13/2020, describes a 90‑square‑foot kitchen remodel with electrical upgrades and 100 sq ft of dry‑rot repair, and appears to have been properly reviewed.
The board heard that appellants and neighbors raised concerns about historic character and possible threats during construction, and the permit holder’s representative recorded claims that the appellant had allegedly threatened workers; those accusations were debated in testimony and were not resolved by the board beyond the record presented.
After questioning, Commissioner Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal on the ground the permit had been properly issued; Commissioners Santacana, Lazarus, Honda and Tanner voted aye. The Board noted a 10‑day waiting period before the decision is final and available in writing, per standard procedure.
With the appeal denied, the permit holder may proceed subject to the normal waiting period and any outstanding code or inspection requirements, and DBI indicated the department will complete any remaining inspections or permit clean‑up.
