Board of Appeals upholds two DBI alteration permits, rejecting tenant challenges

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 25 rejected two tenant appeals challenging Department of Building Inspection alteration permits, ruling that both permits were properly issued and should be upheld.

In the first case, tenant Marie Morales asked the board to deny Permit 201404304598, which seeks to remove an unpermitted kitchen on the ground floor at 2386 Thirtieth Avenue. Morales told the board the change would result in a change of occupancy and possible eviction and said she had not seen a DBI notice of violation. "The entire reason that this permit was obtained was to circumvent the law," Morales said, urging the board to deny the permit until DBI issued a formal notice ordering the work.

Respondent counsel Jesse Ralph and DBI Senior Building Inspector Joe Duffy both told the board DBI had investigated the property, reviewed permit history and issued a notice of violation tied to a prior permit; Duffy said the permit application "appears to be properly issued" and that a May notice of violation prompted the compliance work. Planning Department representative Corey Teague said the property's zoning and a 1997 recorded notice of special restriction supported the department's determination that the ground floor was not permitted as a separate dwelling and that the permit was processed consistent with the mayor's executive directive and Planning rules.

After questioning focused on disclosure in the sale and whether a notice of violation had issued before the permit application, the board voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit as properly issued.

In the second matter, tenant Jason Fisher, represented by attorney Alex Merchant, argued that a permit for 1515 Eleventh Avenue to legalize storage and laundry rooms and remove a nonpermitted kitchen would effectively evict a long‑term tenant. Merchant urged the board to apply the mayor's housing‑preservation executive directive when possible to avoid displacement.

Permit holder Fred Santiago said he had not authorized a conversion of the space into a bedroom and that the work was intended to comply with DBI's notice of violation. DBI testified that a complaint and subsequent inspection led to a notice of violation documenting an illegal dwelling unit and underlying violations; DBI explained plan details including ceiling heights and the scope of demolition required to remove kitchen fixtures and cap utilities.

Commissioners probed whether the space could be made habitable under current law and discussed the ceiling‑height constraint. After hearing rebuttal and clarifications, the board voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the DBI issuance.

The decisions distinguish between landlord–tenant disputes and Department of Building Inspection authority: commissioners noted tenant concerns about displacement and disclosure but concluded those issues do not, on the record presented, render the permits unlawful. Both matters were decided without any further administrative conditions.

The board recorded the minutes of its votes and moved to subsequent agenda items.