Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds renovation permit for 595 Noe despite tenant health concerns
Summary
After tenants raised asthma, mold and lead concerns and requested temporary relocation, the Board of Appeals found the February 8 permit for renovation at 595 Noe Street was properly issued and denied the appeal; Board members noted permit conditions and DBI inspection and abatement requirements.
The Board of Appeals on March 22 denied an appeal by tenants of 595 Noe Street and upheld a Department of Building Inspection permit to renovate a vacant unit in a three‑unit building.
Tenants Michael Davenport and Stephen Hamilton told the board they face health vulnerabilities — including asthma and recent surgery — and said prior mold problems and potential disturbance of lead paint and asbestos during renovation made the building uninhabitable during demolition. They asked the permit holders to provide temporary relocation within a one‑mile radius for the duration of disruptive work.
Permit holders Mark Godin and Timothy Tu said the vacant unit had not been maintained for years and needed renovation; they provided testing results they said showed no asbestos in demolition areas and said they would work with Bay Area Air Quality Management District and use lead‑certified supervisors where required. They offered to limit construction hours, reduce site noise and work with tenants on accommodations.
DBI and Housing Inspectors described the permit review process, noted the permit had been suspended in February and that lead‑disturbance and asbestos‑abatement procedures are part of code compliance and inspection. After deliberation the board concluded the permit had been properly issued, denied the appeal and instructed parties to use the permitting and code‑driven complaint channels for any future noncompliance. The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit carried.
