Board of Appeals flags recurring gap in tenant notice when owners remove illegal units

Several items on the Board of Appeals’ April 15 agenda converged on one recurring problem: tenants living in illegal units are sometimes not notified when owners apply for permits that could remove or legalize those units, and current codes or procedures may not require tenant notice.

At the start of Item 5 (130 Nineteenth Avenue), tenant representative Tommy Avicoli Mecha told the board the tenant did not receive timely notice of a demolition permit and therefore could not file a timely appeal: "The tenant never received notice from the city in order to file a timely appeal," he said. Planning Department representative Scott Sanchez and DBI Inspector Joe Duffy both confirmed that, under existing code, there is currently no requirement for DBI to notify tenants when work involves removal of an illegal unit. "There’s no mechanism in the planning code that would require that notice for this case here for removal of an illegal unit," Sanchez said, and DBI staff confirmed the building code likewise does not mandate broad tenant notice for this scope of work.

Commissioners described the situation as an "inherent vulnerability" that can leave long‑term occupants unaware until they receive a later eviction notice. Commissioner Rick Swig (newly seated) and others urged that the city explore code changes to require notice when permits could change occupancy. President Anne Lazarus suggested the Board could place a formal item on a future agenda—such as a letter or resolution—to call the issue to the attention of the Board of Supervisors or appropriate departments.

The lack of standard notice emerged across multiple agenda items. In Item 6 (15 Nobles Alley), appellant Mark Bruno argued that DBI had misinformed the Board at a prior hearing about outstanding notices of violation; DBI acknowledged two NOVs on the property but the Board denied rehearing, 4–0, concluding no new evidence merited rehearing. In Item 10 (3828 Cesar Chavez Street), Planning Department staff asked the Board to revoke a permit that had been issued without a block‑book/BBN notice to the affected party; Planning said the permit should not have been issued because the Planning Commission had already denied it on discretionary review when proper notice procedures had been followed. The Board’s vote on that revocation request produced a 2–2 tie, so no change was made to the Zoning Administrator’s order by motion, leaving further action to DBI and the procedural revocation process.

Public speakers and tenant advocates urged the board to favor notice and tenant protections. Tenant representative Deborah Walker, speaking from the Building Inspection Commission litigation meeting, urged the Board to accept jurisdiction and send permits back for proper notification so tenants can be heard.

The Board took specific, case‑level actions (for example denying the jurisdiction request in Item 5), but the meeting produced broad agreement among several commissioners that city code and permitting procedures should be reviewed to provide for earlier tenant notification when permits affect occupancy. Commissioners asked staff to calendar a formal item or resolution to request code or policy changes that would require tenant notice in such circumstances.

Next procedural steps depend on DBI and Planning choices: a revoked permit could be reprocessed with BBN notice and, if denied again, would return to the Board under the normal appeal paths; if upheld, the parties could proceed to the relocation/notice/compensation process required by the rent ordinance.