Board upholds Clay Street permit but requires upgraded plans and DBI sign-off

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 12 upheld an alteration permit for 1485 Clay Street but required the permit holder to upgrade the drawings to meet Department of Building Inspection (DBI) intake requirements before the work continues.

Board President Anne Lazarus and three commissioners reviewed an appeal filed by tenants Stacy Miller and Geeta Baduria, who protested an alteration permit issued to Clay Street Investors LLC for Unit 10. The tenants argued the revised drawings provided Thursday lacked critical cross sections and did not show how the infill wall between Units 9 and 10 would meet required fire‑rating standards, and they asked the board to reject or condition the permit to protect tenant space and safety.

The permit holder, represented in part by Manoj Kapoor, submitted updated drawings at the hearing and told the board DBI staff had visited the site and supported lowering the raised bathroom floor to remove an unusual built‑in roll‑out bed condition. DBI Inspector Joseph Duffy told the board the drawings were clear enough for discussion but were not a complete, stamped set acceptable for intake or for issuance of a final permit; he said the file lacks an architect’s stamp, a full unit floor plan and a clear written scope of work.

Commissioners debated options including denying the appeal, remanding (which the board’s rules do not permit), or granting the appeal and conditioning the permit on submission of an approvable set of plans. Commissioner Frank Fung moved to grant the appeal and make approval contingent on the revised plans submitted that evening being upgraded to meet DBI intake requirements — including a title block, required stamps/signatures, a complete floor plan, and an explicit scope of kitchen work — and on DBI’s acceptance of a conditional permit. The board voted 4–0 to uphold the permit with those conditions.

Inspector Duffy and board members said DBI plan‑check staff would work with the permit holder to identify the specific additions necessary for intake and that the conditional permit process would append the approved set to the board’s decision. The board also discussed tenant compensation options (the permit holder said rent reductions were possible) and noted that the Rent Board, not the Appeals Board, handles just‑cause and rent‑related disputes.

The board concluded the matter after clarifying that the permit will only remain valid if the permit holder submits the upgraded, approvable drawings and obtains DBI sign‑off under the conditional‑permit process. The board voted 4–0.

The Appeals Board meeting adjourned after the vote; DBI staff offered to coordinate plan‑check guidance with the permit holder and the appellants.