Board upholds abatement and costs for unpermitted three‑story addition at 820 Laguna Honda Boulevard

SAN FRANCISCO — The Abatement Appeals Board on March 19 unanimously upheld an order of abatement and assessment of costs for an unpermitted three‑story addition at 820 Laguna Honda Boulevard, rejecting the appellant’s request to vacate or substantially extend compliance deadlines.

DBI code enforcement told the board the complaint (filed Nov. 9, 2021) identified a three‑story unpermitted addition at the rear of the building spanning the full width and approximately 10 feet in depth. DBI’s presentation summarized enforcement steps: notice of violation Jan. 25, 2022; a final warning in 2023; director’s hearings in July and August 2024 with continuances and advising periods; and an order of abatement issued Nov. 8, 2024. Staff reported a site permit application (site permit 20220503449) remained in the final stages of review as of Feb. 21, 2025.

David Pearl, the appellant’s attorney, said the owner, William O’Keefe, submitted a permit less than four months after the initial citation and subsequently faced prolonged discretionary review and delay in city processing. Pearl said the delays have exposed O’Keefe to fines and penalties and that “Mr. O'Keefe has been working for years to try and get this permit approved. He wants nothing more than to be done with it.” Pearl said the owner faces “outstanding fines and penalties in excess of $5,000” and warned DBI’s procedures have stalled progress.

Multiple neighbors and community representatives urged the board to retain the abatement. Tony Hall, a nearby resident, said the additions have blocked sunlight and described balconies and a “spite fence” that he said intruded on neighboring open space. Robert Coleman, who said he has tracked the case “in the public interest,” noted concerns about a former building inspector implicated in permit irregularities and urged continuing enforcement. Former Supervisor Matt Gonzales and representatives of the Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association also urged the board not to vacate the abatement, arguing the additions would not have been approved had standard permitting been followed and that reversing the abatement would undermine enforcement.

DBI staff clarified during rebuttal that the higher $500‑per‑day penalty Pearl referenced applies only if the case is referred to the city attorney for litigation; at this stage DBI was focused on fees assessed for time and materials. Staff also said DBI had provided extended time to comply and had worked through the variance and discretionary review processes the case required.

In deliberations several commissioners said the record showed unpermitted construction and substantial neighborhood impacts. Commissioner Williams moved to uphold the order of abatement and assessment of costs; Commissioner Ming seconded. Roll call votes: Vice President Newman — yes; Commissioner Alexander Toot — yes; Commissioner Ming — yes; Commissioner Williams — yes. The motion carried unanimously.

The board’s decision leaves the Nov. 8, 2024 order and the associated assessments in place while the pending site permit continues through DBI’s approval process.