Board upholds three Park Merced permits, conditions permit holder not to seek pass‑throughs for those items

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to uphold three building permits for minor repairs at Park Merced (110 Crespi Drive; 24 Diaz Avenue; 27 Serrano Drive) and added a condition — based on counsel’s on‑the‑record representation — that the permit holder will not submit capital‑improvement pass‑through petitions to the Rent Board for the work under those specific permits.

Tenant and Park Merced resident Aaron Goodman and other speakers contended the repairs amount to cosmetic “gilding” that could be used to justify future pass‑throughs that would raise rents; resident Julian Lagos urged the board to consider the broader pattern of improvements and alleged owner practices. Alliance Residential's counsel, Jim Abrams of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, said the three items in the appeal (a guardrail picket replacement and canopy repairs) were repair‑level work that either did not require permits or were properly permitted, that the work is completed, and that Alliance has assured the board the costs will not be passed on to tenants.

Department staff and DBI confirmed many of the other cosmetic measures cited by tenants do not require permits under current law; board counsel and the city attorney indicated that the board could make the no‑pass‑through promise a condition limited to the three subject permits. Commissioners debated whether delaying the permits pending Landmark Board review was appropriate but concluded that the landmarking process could be lengthy and would not necessarily affect the narrow permit decisions before them.

The board's motion to uphold the three permits included on‑the‑record language that the permit holder has agreed not to submit a capital‑improvement pass‑through petition to the Rent Board for work under the subject permits; the motion passed 5–0.

Votes: Motion to uphold permits with the stated condition — passed 5–0.