Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Vs Owner Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines rehearing on 101 Frederick Street dispute; tenants warned work would be disruptive
Summary
The San Francisco board voted 3‑2 not to rehear a question over whether restrictions on renovations apply to vacant units at 101 Frederick Street. Tenants argued plumbing interconnections would make work in a vacant unit disruptive; the owner said his paperwork excluded vacant units and that disruption would be minimal.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 10 declined, by a 3‑2 vote, to rehear and clarify whether its June 3 decision limiting some renovation work applied only to occupied units or to all units at 101 Frederick Street.
Tenants told the board that work in a vacant unit would affect plumbing and utilities throughout the four‑unit building. Tenant Joyce Nardo said, "All the plumbing's interconnected... so there's no way for him to change that out without it affecting all our plumbing," and said extended construction would be disruptive given that she is home during daytime hours.
The permit holder, building owner Tom Mitchell, told the board his paperwork rescinded work only for occupied units and excluded vacant units, saying, "All of my paperwork stated... the vacant units are excluded." Mitchell said the building's gas and hot‑water meters are separate and that any interruption should be brief and limited.
Commissioners spent substantial time questioning whether the permit holder had previously offered a written revision that would limit remodeling to unoccupied interiors. Board members also debated the consequences of clarifying the prior motion (which could leave the original permit operative absent four votes) versus leaving the record unchanged and allowing the permit holder to seek separate, over‑the‑counter permits for smaller alterations.
President Fung moved to rehear the case for clarification. After roll call the motion failed 3‑2, and the board did not reopen the earlier determination. The Board clerk noted that either party retains the right to request a rehearing under the board's rules.
The immediate practical effect is that the prior decision stands as written; the permit holder may apply separately for permits affecting the vacant unit, and either party may pursue a formal rehearing or judicial review under applicable procedures.
The board moved on to the next agenda item after the vote.
