Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds and narrows Spruce Street permits after tenant alleges unsafe demolition and lead risks
Summary
The Board of Appeals upheld one Spruce Street bathroom-remodel permit and modified a second, narrowing its scope after the appellant alleged her sole bathroom was removed without adequate accommodation and raised lead-abatement concerns; DBI agreed to revise the broader permit to allow only specified work to proceed.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 27, 2011 upheld a bathroom-remodel permit for 342–344 Spruce Street and, after negotiation with the Department of Building Inspection, modified a separate permit covering multiple notices of violation to limit its scope.
Jackie Grama, the appellant for 342 Spruce, told the board workers removed her bathtub and sink and that she received only two days’ notice. She said she filed an appeal when she saw demolition beneath her unit and that no proper precautions were taken for lead-based paint. “No precautions were taken to protect me or my neighbors of the hazards of airborne lead paint particles,” Grama said.
Property manager Mark Epstein said the owners obtained permits and offered accommodations to tenants affected by remodeling, including a porta-potty and use of JCC showers and a temporary rent abatement in one case. Epstein said contractors found rotted floor framing that could not be repaired from below and that replacement work was necessary.
DBI’s Joe Duffy told commissioners that work practices for lead-based paint require three days’ notice, containment, and cleanup and that the May 4 permit (2011-545288) appeared to be written too broadly because it referenced compliance with multiple notices of violation and remodeling of four units. Duffy recommended revising or revoking the overly broad permit.
On item 5A (appeal 11-067), the board voted 5-0 to uphold permit 2011-12-5871 for Unit 340 on the basis that it complied with code. On item 5B (appeal 11-068, permit 2011-545288), DBI and the permit holder agreed to strike all work from the permit except two items: remodeling the bathroom in Unit 340 and emergency repair of the rear stairs (NOV 2011-13203). The board approved the modified permit 5-0 and stated the permit holder would not be precluded from reapplying to address the other NOV work.
Commissioners expressed concern about tenant accommodations and noted that some relocation or staging arrangements commonly used in large remodels might be appropriate, but they also weighed the safety and code-compliance needs of other tenants in the building.
