Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Eviction Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals gives tenants a year to remain while permit dispute continues
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued an appeal over a basement unit at 1734–1740 Mason Street for one year, directing status reports and preserving tenants’ occupancy while departments reconcile permit and zoning issues.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 16 continued for one year an appeal over a basement unit at 1734–1740 Mason Street, a move meant to give elderly tenants time to stay while the building’s permit issues are resolved.
Appellants Xu Fen Wu and Yuping Mei told the board they have lived in the unit for more than 16 years and face eviction after the Department of Building Inspection determined the space did not conform to permit requirements. ‘‘We oppose this eviction, and we seek your help in helping us to retain our home,’’ Wu said during public comment.
The permit holder, Bill Kwon of the Kwon Family Limited Partnership, told the board the unit was discovered during a routine inspection and that he did not want to force tenants to move. Kwon asked the board to rescind the permit that would have legalized the basement unit so the tenants could remain.
Planning staff explained the property is in an RM-2 zoning district where lot-area density limits the number of permitted units; the planning analyst told the board the lot legally allows three units and the application sought to legalize a fourth or fifth unit, making the basement unit impermissible under current code.
Chief Building Inspector Lawrence Kornfield testified the basement unit met basic habitability requirements and did not pose a life-safety hazard, including egress, ventilation and smoke detectors. Kornfield said any abatement action would be stayed while the matter is before the board.
Vice President Fung moved to continue the matter for one year with a status report due from both parties; the board indicated the continuance would be calendared to a date in July 2009. The motion passed unanimously, 5–0.
Next steps: the case will return to the Board of Appeals in July 2009 with an instruction that both parties file status reports; planning and building staff will continue to advise the board on zoning, parking and enforcement implications.
