Board of Appeals continues disputed Church Street stairs permit to Jan. 10 for DBI code opinion

The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued to Jan. 10, 2024, a contested appeal over a DBI-issued repair permit for rear stairs at 1331–1333 Church Street, directing the Department of Building Inspection to request a formal code advisory opinion about whether separate permits are required when a stair structure is attached to two properties.

Appellant Anil Kavipurapu told the board the staircase at issue crosses the property line and cited Section 1068.1 of the building code, arguing "no building or structure regulated by this code shall be altered...unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained." He asked the board to suspend the permit until plans and a second permit for his property were obtained. "If Mr. Chen wants to repair these stairs, two permits are required," Kavipurapu said, and requested that the permit plans be revised to show an air gap and to clarify which elements remain.

Permit holder Ken Chin and his representative urged the board to uphold the permit, saying the stairs serve Chin's property and that some fasteners have, over time, been driven into the neighbor's wall. Chin emphasized an immediate safety need: parts of the stairs present tripping hazards for his autistic son. "With safety being our highest priority we need to address the immediate safety hazard as soon as possible," Chin said.

Department of Building Inspection Deputy Director Matthew Green said the permit was issued on Sept. 19 and suspended on Oct. 4. DBI's technical reading is that the plans show the stairs as serving a single structure and that the work is "less than 50%" repair (for which plans are not generally required). Green offered to send the question to DBI's code advisory committee for a written interpretation. "If it's less than 50% we consider it a repair...More than 50% we consider replacement," Green said, explaining DBI's internal threshold and offering to seek a formal advisory opinion.

Commissioners debated consistency with a prior case the board considered when a fire escape attached to two buildings had required two permits. Several commissioners said the factual differences between that earlier case and this one are material (prior case had plans on file showing a structure straddling two lots), while others said the presence of fasteners that penetrate the neighboring wall obliges a two-permit approach regardless of scale. Because commissioners were split on the likely legal interpretation but DBI recommended getting a code advisory opinion and the permit holder indicated he could wait until after the rainy season to do nonurgent work, the board voted 5–0 to continue the appeal to Jan. 10, 2024 so DBI can provide a written advisory and parties can try to negotiate a settlement.

DBI noted the permit will remain suspended while the appeal is pending; Green said staff would ask the code advisory committee for an opinion and, if possible, post it before the Jan. 10 hearing so the board and parties have guidance in advance.