Board denies appeal of planning notice of violation for 33 Norfolk; planning enforcement process to continue

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 7 denied an appeal from the owner of 33 Norfolk Street, Paramount Estate LLC, of a planning notice of violation (NOV) that alleged an unauthorized change of use at the property (an operator known as Enzyme Collective/Enzyme SF had used the site for nighttime entertainment and other activities not authorized under the property’s zoning). The board’s vote to deny the appeal was 4–0.

Lede

Paramount had argued it and its lessee attempted to comply, that the lessee had vacated the premises, and that planning staff had given mixed directions about abatement and the assessment of time‑and‑materials fees. The property owner sought a board order declaring the NOV abated and nullifying any time‑and‑materials administrative fees; planning staff said the NOV should be upheld and that the department will follow its stated abatement process, including confirmation of vacatur and assessment of time‑and‑materials fees where applicable.

Nut graf

Commissioners denied the appeal on the grounds the planning NOV had been properly issued, but the board and staff described a clear path to administrative closure if the owner produces required documentation showing the unauthorized use has ceased and any outstanding inter‑agency enforcement items are resolved. The board’s action leaves in place the NOV while the owner (and any former lessee) completes the abatement steps and works with planning and other city departments to close outstanding enforcement items.

Key points discussed

- Property owner Andrew Fung said he bought the vacant property in 2019 intending to redevelop it but leased it short‑term to an art‑studio tenant because of carrying costs; he said the tenant (Enzyme/Enzyme SF) later carried out unauthorized activity and that the tenant vacated in late December 2024. Fung said he followed planning‑department instructions and supplied photos documenting vacatur but that planning staff asked that other agency (DBI) violations be resolved before planning closed its NOV. - Planning staff explained that the department issues NOVs and separately charges time‑and‑materials enforcement fees under Planning Code §3.50(g); planning’s enforcement practice is to work with responsible parties to document abatement. Planning said time‑and‑materials billing is a cost‑recovery process and the department will provide line‑item accounting on request; the department also indicated penalties (up to $1,000 per day) are available under the code if the violation is not abated, but historically the department does not assess penalties where a responsible party is working in good faith and moving to abate the violation. - DBI said its open NOVs (for alleged unpermitted construction and an unlawful bathroom) remain unresolved and must be addressed through DBI’s inspection/plan review process; DBI offered to coordinate inspections and confirm whether prior permits and plan sets demonstrate a legal condition.

Board action and consequences

The board denied the property owner’s appeal, finding the planning NOV had been properly issued. Commissioners directed the property owner to work with planning and DBI to provide the documentation that will allow the NOV to be abated: typically, planning will verify photos of vacatur or perform a site visit and planning and DBI will reconcile the remaining code compliance issues. Planning staff said no penalties had been assessed in this case to date; time‑and‑materials costs are recoverable by the department per the planning code, and the department will provide accounting to the owner.

Why it matters

The decision upholds the planning department’s enforcement authority in cases where a property’s use changes without required approvals, and it underscores that abatement usually requires the owner to coordinate with multiple departments (planning, DBI, and, where applicable, the Entertainment Commission and Fire Department). The board did not award relief on fees; commissioners discussed that the board’s statutory authority to change certain departmental penalties is limited and that some charges (time‑and‑materials enforcement billing) are addressed in other planning‑code sections.

Ending

The planning NOV remains in force; the property owner may pursue administrative abatement steps with planning and DBI and request a line‑item accounting of any time‑and‑materials fees. If abatement is verified, planning will move to close the NOV in accordance with department procedures.