Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenant appeals bathroom renovation at 1485 Clay Street; Board requires drawings, continues hearing
Summary
A tenant appealed a permit for bathroom work at 1485 Clay Street, arguing a floor-lowering plan would remove trundle-bed storage and impair the unit; owners said the work is needed for code compliance. The Board directed permit holder to submit drawings and continued the case for review.
A San Francisco tenant appealed a building permit for 1485 Clay Street on Nov. 5, saying the planned lowering of a bathroom floor to meet modern code would eliminate a trundle-bed storage area used as living space.
Appellant Stacy Miller said the building’s unusual raised-floor bathroom and sliding-trundle bed are critical to her ability to live and work in a small studio; she argued the Department of Building Inspection’s over-the-counter permit for an "in-kind" kitchen-and-bath remodel did not disclose work that would adversely affect adjacent units and that she was denied meaningful discretionary review.
Owner Manoj Kapoor said the property — an 11‑unit, 100‑year‑old building the LLC bought in 2011 — contains several units with the same raised-floor condition, and the owner is trying to bring bathrooms closer to current safety standards. Kapoor said the work is not intended to evict tenants and that rent‑board remedies exist for any severance/compensation issues.
DBI senior inspector Joe Duffy told the board that lowering a bathroom floor would normally require revised drawings and building inspection, and that the department had issued a correction notice for minimum ceiling height, stair riser/tread, and fire-rating standards. Planning staff said the scope did not appear to trigger a merger under Planning Code section 3.17, but that the matter raised building-code and rent‑board issues.
Commissioner Frank Fung moved to continue the appeal to allow the permit holder to submit revised drawings; the permit holder agreed to provide copies to the board and the appellant. The board continued the matter for review and set a deadline for the permit holder’s revised drawings.
