Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing on clustered Bush/Taylor appeals after tenants cite lead, asbestos and habitability concerns
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 4‑1 to deny a rehearing request tied to multiple appeals affecting properties at 734 Bush and 625 Taylor, after tenant advocates presented allegations of lead exposure, asbestos risk and repeated code violations; commissioners pointed to enforcement channels and said no new evidence was shown.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4‑1 on Dec. 6 to deny a rehearing request for a set of appeals covering properties including 734 Bush Street and 625 Taylor Street. The motion to deny the rehearing was made by Commissioner Michael Garcia and carried with Commissioner Holland casting the lone dissent.
Speakers representing tenants and tenant organizations detailed complaints they said had emerged since the prior hearing: William Tice said Department of Public Health and DBI notices of violation had been issued for lead exposure and other habitability problems at properties managed by the permit holder Skyline. "They were sent notice of abatement from Department of Public Health for exposing the tenants to lead," Tice told the board, describing children and pregnant household members exposed to dust and debris.
Claire Sandberg Bernard, volunteer coordinator at the Tenants Union, described a survey of clients reporting repeated late‑night construction, inadequate asbestos containment, frequent water shutoffs and dust and debris in halls. The union said it had begun collecting member reports and planned to submit additional evidence.
Permit‑holder counsel argued that the new filings did not present facts that would change earlier findings and that the Board had previously imposed strict conditions to address hazardous‑materials concerns. City staff explained that enforcement of permit conditions and code violations generally falls to the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and, where applicable, Department of Public Health.
Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to tenants’ hardship but concluded the rehearing standard requires new evidence or a showing of manifest injustice. Commissioner Albright and others said they saw no sufficiently new evidence presented at the hearing to meet the rehearing test, while Commissioner Holland expressed reservations about denying the rehearing given the seriousness of tenant complaints.
The board denied the rehearing; commissioners directed that DBI and other enforcement agencies follow up on alleged violations and reiterated that appellants retain other avenues (director’s hearings, civil actions) if enforcement is needed.
