Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits Tenant Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines jurisdiction over renovation permits at 2173 California Street after split vote
Summary
Two jurisdiction requests by tenant Tim Moring regarding remodeling at 2173 California St. were denied as a matter of law after a 2–2 tie; the board debated whether the Rent Board or the DBI permit process was the proper forum and whether unpermitted work warranted a stay of the overall permit.
On April 6 the San Francisco Board of Appeals considered two jurisdiction requests concerning renovation permits for 2173 California Street, a nine‑unit apartment building. Requester Tim Moring alleged the owner and agent performed work in an area labeled Unit 104 that exceeded the scope of permits and that an ‘illegal unit’ was being created; he said he submitted photographic evidence and sought the board’s intervention. The board’s action on the jurisdiction request ended with a tied vote and the request was denied as a matter of law.
Tim Moring told the board he first complained to DBI after discovering demolition in a ground‑floor area labeled 104, which he said lacked kitchen or bathroom facilities and was not included as one of the nine permitted units. He said the permit costs looked “exorbitant,” alleged the owner suggested tenancy‑in‑common or other strategies that might displace tenants, and said he had sought assistance from the Tenderloin Housing Clinic to prepare his jurisdiction request.
Permit holder Barry Sherman said he purchased the building in December 2010 to remediate decades of poor maintenance and planned a comprehensive renovation that would require temporary vacancies; his counsel Daniel Bornstein warned that granting jurisdiction could halt remediation across all units and displace tenants who were already cooperating with renovations. The owner offered $8,500 transition payments and said tenants would have rights to return under rent‑control rules.
DBI Inspector Joseph Duffy testified the permits were issued as over‑the‑counter approvals, that he observed demolition and removed finishes in an area with the number 104 that exceeded the permit scope, and that the department issued a notice of violation and a permit to comply. He also said the department would not object if the permit holder sought to stagger work by applying for separate permits for units not involved in the dispute.
Public commenter Joel Donoghue argued Moring omitted facts in his complaint and that the owner had informed tenants about planned work in advance. Commissioners were divided: some said the Rent Board may be the appropriate venue for tenant‑rights issues, others expressed sympathy for tenants concerned about displacement and notice. Commissioner Fung moved to deny jurisdiction; the roll call resulted in a 2–2 tie and by statute the request was denied as a matter of law.
Outcome: The board took no further action to stay or modify the permits at the April 6 meeting. The underlying DBI notice of violation and any remedies remain subject to DBI processes and potential appeals.
