[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6648126,"mediaKeyId","3429312-3c5d901c0717a07928d9bb954e4abc9d","parentId",3429312,"title","Abatement Appeals Board denies rehearing request for 820 Laguna Honda; previous abatement stands","audioSeconds",2053,"startMs",2850000,"endMs",4903000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3429312-3c5d901c0717a07928d9bb954e4abc9d&start=2850&end=4903","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3429312-3c5d901c0717a07928d9bb954e4abc9d/thumbnail_2850000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6648126/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Abatement-Appeals-Board-denies-rehearing-request-for-820-Laguna-Honda-previous-abatement-stands","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6648126-e3c15768762b0136722afb2b564a2ec7/orig.mp4?Expires=1776054463&Signature=FUvtX3RIpDmupD15dp50GBZBU-O1Uqra0hywvYiDMLTtpy228ejB8veiJ4PM~a5lvGpLrN-iGPFh1HfViFQCZUB3dRLQcLPPzVnuhTSj7KJO2WeyXe~EWsZmILvYMJyrv3nkdPxHF99t1qwjghgt4EbxeG8Lti2RFLL9MD~~ZM9n4e~zGjWKb3hfZDN0OMMiQcIyp1TQ0jFukNzhkpVIh6-RIYyZO~vdCybymUhI9VcKqyZWTk~BYGusqBHhgOf33A-ErT5sxHg3SlmnLuuGduH0nSzEoWqdozDPLdCTxiMpvLz6kg91Uzsu5IZGXBpNILGzcQbzmRnrAho~uDTsLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-05-21T00:00:00Z","article","The Abatement Appeals Board on Wednesday denied a request for rehearing of an order of abatement for 820 Laguna Honda Boulevard, ruling that the appellant had not presented new facts or shown legal error sufficient to reopen the matter.

The boards action, carried by unanimous vote, leaves in place the order issued earlier this year that requires the property owner to address unpermitted construction at the site.

Attorney David Pearl, representing property owner William O'Keefe, told the board the prior decision was legally erroneous and relied on \"incompetent hearsay evidence.\" Pearl argued the board had improperly focused on whether O'Keefe believed a permit existed rather than the dispositive legal question: \"the issue is simply was there a permit or not? If there wasn't a permit, then the notice of violation can be issued,\" he said, adding that administrative delays at DBI and Planning had prevented timely completion of permit work.

DBI senior building inspector Gilbert Lam told the board he had reviewed the rehearing request and did not find new evidence warranting another hearing. \"I did review the accounts request statements to for the rehearing. But I didn't feel that there was any new evidence or information brought forth that we previously did not have and therefore I request the board to deny the request for the hearing,\" Lam said.

Several neighbors and local residents urged the board to deny rehearing and to let the abatement proceed. Tony Hall, who said he lives at 20 Rockaway Avenue, told commissioners the appellant had repeatedly failed to resolve long-standing violations and questioned why required work had not been completed. \"Why hasn't the process to pull the permit by O'Keefe been completed? Is it because he hasn't paid the school fees associated with new construction as required? Maybe,\" Hall said. Other speakers described repeated complaints to DBI and called the owners conduct a \"mockery\" of the city's permitting system.

Public commenters and a former board member said there was documentary evidence and a long record of complaints and inspections. One public speaker who identified himself as a former inspector said he had been removed from the project years earlier and described irregularities in prior inspections.

After commissioners deliberated on the rehearing standard which requires new or different material facts or a showing that the board's earlier decision was \"illegally erroneous\" Commissioner Williams moved to deny the rehearing request; Vice President Newman seconded. The five commissioners present voted yes: President Chavez, Vice President Newman, Commissioner Calamucci, Commissioner Ming and Commissioner Williams. The motion carried unanimously.

The board noted the rehearing standard is narrow: a rehearing may be granted only if new evidence or legal error is shown. Commissioners said they had considered the appellants written submissions and oral arguments and were not persuaded that the standard was met.

The underlying abatement and any related permit requirements remain in effect under DBI and Planning review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - May 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously denied a request to rehear an order of abatement for 820 Laguna Honda Boulevard, finding no new evidence or legal error. Neighbors and multiple public speakers urged the board to let the abatement and planning actions stand.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6648130,"Abatement Appeals Board puts 116 Merced Ave. order in abeyance for one year, cuts permit penalty",2566,267000,2833000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3429312-3c5d901c0717a07928d9bb954e4abc9d&start=267&end=2833","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3429312-3c5d901c0717a07928d9bb954e4abc9d/thumbnail_267000.jpg","/articles/6648130/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Abatement-Appeals-Board-puts-116-Merced-Ave-order-in-abeyance-for-one-year-cuts-permit-penalty","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6648130-4e4f3405fd110f8c599733278a262332/orig.mp4?Expires=1776054463&Signature=m-1KqZrdzftjMzIWitjFbT4VnxKwzeB9APJf4dKIPQFWaCAJfUiGTiTPsytgiITSOyqRJW0tvuSi1pPKJ44fpJuvC-ymiddQtA00t6EY4OGNQorgoWcV9FlohbfhxxGHxou-GUE2bWGhZLBPKyhPrhzJc7Qe3K0gkQv6f-OGaD5JOOcPbFfKDUSo~Gl79doSDDwbRPOndQdJuqV~Flq06KN42pwfMslDmUjSILLMOtDjBZcPsyXa3ral-8kx-LRr2K9zg~8-rdlMQ2thTkS5PcNsPEKNVGbpmL5rz6uOwbOoUWu-MyHatzUm-TfmkFgansTVRILAynOOv3TzozFG9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Abatement Appeals Board on Wednesday voted unanimously to hold the order of abatement for 116 Merced Avenue in abeyance for one year and to reduce the permit-penalty multiplier from nine times to two times the permit application fee.

The action preserves the Department of Building Inspections (DBI) authority to enforce the underlying notice of violation if the owner does not complete required work within a year, but delays recording the order and its one-time assessment while the owner pursues an alteration permit to remove an illegal dwelling unit.

DBI senior building inspector Gilbert Lam told the panel that the original notice of violation was issued Aug. 30, 2019, after a site inspection found habitable rooms in the basement, including a kitchen and bathroom. The directors hearing process and permit history, Lam said, left the case unresolved and the abatement was issued Nov. 5, 2024, because of continued noncompliance.

The owners attorney, Brett Gladstone, described a series of delays he called a \"perfect storm\" that included COVID-related interruptions, the owners medical issues, inconsistent instructions between DBI and the Planning Department and sharply higher construction costs. Gladstone asked the board for a one-year moratorium under the building codes financial-hardship provision and for suspension or subordination of any lien during that time. \"The grounds for the moratorium are financial hardship,\" Gladstone said, and he requested that the monthly monitoring fee be suspended while the owner obtains financing and files permitting paperwork.

Janet Campbell, the propertys architect, told commissioners that planning staff had refused repeated requests to do a site visit and that that refusal prevented planners from appreciating structural and ceiling-height constraints that made legalization difficult. \"They refused. If they had come, they would have seen the condition and why the legalization could not be done,\" Campbell said, describing areas with ceilings below 7 feet 6 inches and stair and landing conditions that would require broader renovation to meet code.

Commissioners pressed whether the owner intended to pursue removal of the illegal unit or legalization. Counsel for the appellant and the architect said Planning had approved the dwelling-unit removal and that the owner planned to file an alteration permit the following week to remove the unit. DBI staff said either path removal or legalization was acceptable to the department.

Commissioner Ming moved to hold the order in abeyance for one year and to reduce the penalty from nine times the permit application fee to two times the fee; President Chavez seconded. The five commissioners present voted yes: President Chavez, Vice President Newman, Commissioner Calamucci, Commissioner Ming and Commissioner Williams. The motion carried unanimously.

DBI staff explained the practical effect of the abeyance: the order will not be recorded while the case is held in abeyance for a year, and if the owner completes required work and obtains a certificate of final compliance (CFC) within that period, the order will not be recorded and the one-time assessment will not be generated. If the work is not completed within the abeyance period, the order may be recorded and assessments issued.

The board also discussed monitoring fees and permit-assessment fees. DBI staff described monthly monitoring fees as a code-required mechanism \"to compel property owners to get compliance\" and to cover staff time. The boards motion did not cancel monitoring fees but put the order into abeyance for a year; as DBI staff explained, monitoring fees are assessed when an order is recorded and the one-time bill is generated.

The owners attorney also requested reduction of the approximately $9,000 in DBI charges; the boards action reduced the permit penalty multiplier (from the nine-times default for work without permit to two times) consistent with the appellants request and commissioners equity concerns.

If the appellant files the alteration permit and DBI issues the necessary inspections and a CFC within the year, the order will remain unrecorded and no assessment will be generated. If the work is not completed within the abeyance, the order may be recorded and assessments applied.","The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously held the order of abatement for 116 Merced Avenue in abeyance for one year and reduced the permit penalty from nine times to two times the permit fee, after the property owner’s attorney cited COVID delays, medical hardship and planning/DBI coordination problems.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Abatement Appeals Board denies rehearing request for 820 Laguna Honda; previous abatement stands

Abatement Appeals Board puts 116 Merced Ave. order in abeyance for one year, cuts permit penalty