Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds demolition and new‑construction permits for 153–155 Arkansas Street
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied two appeals by John Malaspina challenging DBI and Planning approvals for demolition and a two‑unit replacement at 153–155 Arkansas St., finding permits were properly issued after staff review; appellants raised questions about a prior foreclosure sale and an alleged Department of Justice inquiry, which the permit holder and departments said did not affect permit validity.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 29 denied two appeals by John Malaspina challenging demolition and new‑construction permits issued to JCSF Investments LP for 153–155 Arkansas Street, concluding the city departments reviewed and issued those permits under applicable rules.
Malaspina asked the board to delay demolition while he said an ongoing Department of Justice review of auction and bidding practices involving a participant on the sale (identified in testimony as Craig Lipton) concluded. He said he was not living at the property when proceedings began, described health problems, and disputed aspects of the foreclosure and sale process.
Permit counsel David Estes and owner Craig Lipton said the sale followed a valid foreclosure and title company review; Estes said the buyer had settled prior DOJ matters years earlier and that the owner had offered the former occupant a limited opportunity to buy the property back. "To my knowledge there is no pending investigation of Mr. Lipton," Estes told the board when discussing the facts before the panel; he also said a prior settlement and a $10,000 payment were part of earlier resolutions.
Planning Department staff (Scott Sanchez) told the board the property is in an RH3 zoning district, that permit filings began in August 2013, and that neighborhood notifications occurred in March–April of the prior year. Department of Building Inspection (DBI) inspector Joe Duffy said demolition and new‑construction permits were issued January 17, 2017 and suspended January 30, 2017; DBI records list owner/contractor information and show a 2015 vacant‑building notice on file.
Commissioners focused on whether the appeal raised issues within the board’s review (permit validity, notice and ownership documentation) and not matters for state or federal court. After discussion, Vice President Frank Fung moved to deny both appeals and uphold the permits as properly issued; the motion carried 4–0.
The board’s action confirms the city’s administrative permitting determination; the appellant was advised that his remedies related to alleged auction improprieties or criminal investigation would be pursued through separate state or federal processes and do not alter DBI or Planning’s administrative findings in this hearing.
