Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unpermitted Construction Laguna Honda topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds abatement for unpermitted three‑story addition at 820 Laguna Honda Boulevard
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously upheld an order of abatement and assessment of costs for an unpermitted three‑story rear addition at 820 Laguna Honda Boulevard after hearing neighbors' testimony about privacy, property‑value and permitting concerns and the owner's counsel arguing administrative delay.
The Abatement Appeals Board on March 19 voted unanimously to uphold an order of abatement and assessment of costs against the owner of 820 Laguna Honda Boulevard for an unpermitted three‑story addition and related work, after finding insufficient basis to vacate the notice of violation.
Department of Building Inspection (DBI) code enforcement (complaint 202184157) told the board a site inspection on Jan. 25, 2022 identified an unpermitted three‑story addition approximately 10 feet deep and spanning about 25 feet across the rear of the building. DBI said a permit application (site permit 20220503449) is in progress but the property remains in violation. Staff recommended upholding the November 8, 2024 order of abatement and imposing assessed costs.
Appellant counsel David Perle, representing property owner William O'Keefe, argued the owner promptly submitted a permit application after the 2022 notice and has been delayed by discretionary review and routing within city departments. "For more than 2 years, the permit was completely stalled through discretionary review by the building department and by the zoning administrator," Perle said, and warned the owner faces penalties and assessments imposed under the enforcement timeline.
Multiple neighbors and community members urged the board to uphold the abatement. Tony Hall, a neighbor, said the unpermitted addition blocked sunlight and included later-added balconies and a fence that intruded on adjacent yards; he asked the board not to lift the abatement. "Nothing could be further from the truth," Hall said of the appellant's characterization of events and asked the board to keep the abatement in place. Other speakers, including Robert (Bobby) Coleman, Matt Gonzales, Karen Tarantola and Peter Fatou, described long-standing neighborhood impacts, the outcome of planning and variance reviews, and potential effects on property values.
DBI staff clarified that the commonly cited $500‑per‑day fine applies only if a case advances to city attorney litigation; current assessments reflect staff time and fees. Staff also noted the planning variance included conditions that small third‑floor balconies be removed, and that the pending site permit is in final routing and review stages.
In deliberations several commissioners said the record shows construction took place without permits and that the department did not commit substantial error in issuing the notice of violation. Commissioner Williams moved to uphold the order of abatement and assessment of costs; Commissioner Ming seconded. The motion carried unanimously on roll call (Newman, Alexander Toot, Ming, Williams: yes).
The board action leaves the abatement and assessed costs in place; DBI will proceed with enforcement steps consistent with its administrative process.
