Board reopens case, grants jurisdiction for 524 Lake St.; related permit appeals continued to Dec. 14

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 2 reopened and granted a jurisdiction request tied to work at 524 Lake Street after neighbors and tenants alleged prolonged disruptive work done without timely posting of permits.

Attorney Steve Collier, representing Margaret and Michael Bloomfield, told the board the building permit for a kitchen remodel was not visible on the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) website in August and that demolition and plumbing and electrical work began before the tenants knew a permit had been posted. Collier argued that withheld or late posting had prevented a timely appeal.

The Bloomfields and neighbors described weeks of loud demolition, repeated water incidents and painting fumes they said made parts of their home uninhabitable during their Ellis Act one-year extension. Margaret Bloomfield testified that "we had 2 and a half months of intrusive work with no permits posted," and that fumes and noise forced them to leave the unit at times.

The property owner, Gregory Germano, and contractor Alex Serrano described a narrower scope of work — replacing cabinets, a vanity and installing outlets — and said DBI had issued the electrical and plumbing permits on Sept. 27 and inspectors had signed off on rough inspections. Germano told the board he did not believe the work was excessive and said the complaints stemmed from disagreement over the Ellis Act eviction.

Matthew Green, acting chief building inspector for DBI, told the board the department ran an IT audit and that permit-stage history showed no changes between Aug. 2 and Aug. 24; he also said the plumbing permit was obtained after a notice of violation and that both plumbing and electrical rough inspections passed on Oct. 4. Green recommended keeping the permits in place and letting the work finish.

Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the board it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Ellis Act compliance, but it may consider a permit’s effect on residents when deciding appeals and may impose conditions or deny permits for impacts on inhabitants.

The board initially voted not to grant the jurisdiction request. Later in the meeting, after a motion to apply Robert’s Rules and reconsider, the board voted to reconsider and then approved a motion finding a substantial possibility the city’s posting practices caused a late filing. That motion passed by a 4-1 vote. The board gave the appellants five days to file a formal appeal; it continued appeals 7a (electrical EW202209276277) and 7b (plumbing PP20220927270) to Dec. 14 to line up with the expected filing and hearing schedule.

President Rick Swig stressed the narrow legal question the board decided: whether city action or inaction caused a late filing. The board also discussed, but did not base its decision on, Ellis Act claims; Deputy City Attorney Givner advised any direct Ellis Act dispute would be for a court to decide.

The board’s procedural steps leave open a subsequent hearing on the permits if the Bloomfields file their appeal within the five-day window.