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

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 board—s 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 owner—s 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 appellant—s 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.