Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals continues Polk Street plumbing‑permit appeal to allow DBI and Planning review
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued an appeal by tenant Michael Klotzmann of a plumbing permit at 2047 Polk St., after DBI and Planning officials said a building permit and plans are typically required to remove or reconfigure a residential unit. The hearing was continued to Oct. 8 to allow further departmental investigation.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 23 continued an appeal by tenant Michael Klotzmann challenging a plumbing permit issued to remove and cap a gas pipe and to remove a stove at 2047 Polk Street.
Appellant counsel Mr. Crow told the board the central question is whether “a plumbing permit be the basis for removing a residential unit from the housing market,” arguing the permit was being used to effect a conversion that the Planning Code and Building Code require be processed through a building permit with plans and, when applicable, discretionary review.
City witnesses told the board that the plumbing permit as issued lacks the level of documentation DBI and Planning would usually expect for a conversion or a permanent removal of housing. Senior Building Inspector Joe Duffy said a plumbing permit alone does not describe what happens to the space and that “a building permit is required” to show the reconfiguration and to place the work on the record. Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez told commissioners that, in cases removing an illegal dwelling, DBI typically wants building plans showing the reversion or the new use so the Planning Department can assess any land‑use implications.
Permit‑holder counsel argued the owner is exercising rights under Administrative Code section 37.981 for removing illegal units and that the factual determination about whether the unit is "illegal" is separate from the board's review of the permit at issue. The permit holder also said that if additional permits are required by the city, the owner will apply for them.
Commissioners debated whether the permit was issued in error or whether it should be continued to allow DBI and Housing Inspection Services to conclude their investigations. Several members said upholding an isolated plumbing permit that appears to be a precursor to permanent removal could effect a de facto loss of housing without a DBI/Planning record. Commissioner Huang moved to continue the matter to Oct. 8, 2014, to allow DBI time to conclude its analysis; the motion passed 3–1.
Next steps: The board continued the matter to Oct. 8, 2014, to allow DBI to complete housing‑inspection research, for DBI to consult with plumbing inspection leadership about permit issuance practices, and for the parties to submit any additional briefing or exhibits the board allows.
Votes and formal action: The motion to continue the appeal carried with a recorded vote of 3 in favor, 1 opposed; the board did not revoke the plumbing permit at this hearing.
