Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seismic Retrofit Tenant Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues DBI seismic-retrofit appeal for 1945 Clay Street to Jan. 9 for revised plans and tenant/DBI consultation
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued Paula Peters’ appeal of a DBI-issued seismic retrofit permit for 1945 Clay St. to Jan. 9, 2019, directing the permit holder to submit clarified plans and consult with DBI plan check and the tenant about whether intrusive work can be moved outside the unit.
SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued to Jan. 9, 2019, an appeal by tenant Paula Peters challenging a Department of Building Inspection (DBI) permit for a seismic retrofit at 1945 Clay Street so the permit holder can submit revised plans and consult with DBI and the tenant.
Peters, who said she has lived at 1945 Clay since 2005, told the board the approved permit (issued Oct. 18, 2018) and the accompanying plans contain inconsistencies and revisions that are not dated or clearly recorded, and that the work as shown would render her unit uninhabitable. She asked the board to withhold approval until plan validity and tenant relocation/notice issues were resolved.
"If they decide to go with the original or the revised plan, I will need to be moved out of my apartment either way because my unit will be rendered uninhabitable," Peters said. She cited an architect and an independent inspector who concluded interior work would affect habitability.
The permit holder’s representative, Daniel Mack, and the contractor/architect Sean Liao said they had prepared revised drawings intended to relocate intrusive work to the building exterior so tenants might not need to vacate. DBI inspector Joe Duffy said he reviewed the approved and revised sheets and still saw interior work and details (A35 clips and other elements) that would require interior access. Duffy advised the board that tenant-relocation, compensation and temporary housing questions fall under the Rent Board (Administrative Code Chapter 65A) and that the permit-holder should consult DBI plan check on any revised set of plans before returning.
Commissioners concluded the existing record did not provide a final, agreed set of plans that would resolve whether interior access and relocation would be needed. Vice President Rick Swig moved to continue the matter to Jan. 9, 2019 and augment the continuance with instructions that the permit holder consult with DBI plan check and the tenant and provide the board a clear, updated plan set; the motion carried with aye votes from Commissioners Lazarus, Honda and Tanner.
The continuance is intended to allow the permit holder to submit clarified revision sheets that DBI plan check can preliminarily review and for the parties to attempt a tenant/landlord agreement on relocation or temporary housing. The board noted that tenant‑relocation compensation and other rent‑control remedies are handled by the Rent Board.
The case will return to the Board of Appeals on Jan. 9, 2019, unless the parties reach an agreement and the permit holder provides revised plans that DBI plan check signs off on before that date.
