Abatement Appeals Board upholds DBI order for 201 Ashton Avenue, pauses enforcement 180 days

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on Aug. 21 upheld the Department of Building Inspection(DBI) order of abatement and associated assessment of costs for a fence at 201 Ashton Avenue, but the board voted unanimously to hold enforcement in abeyance for 180 days to give the property owner and the Department of Public Works (DPW) time to resolve outstanding permit requirements.

DBI inspector Joe Ng told the board that the agencyfound unauthorized fences at the corner lot during a 2017 inspection and that the owner had not obtained the required permits or completed corrective work over a seven-year period. Ng said the photos in DBIrecords showed a solid-panel fence exceeding the exemption height and that DBI recommended the order be upheld and costs assessed.

The appellant, who did not give a full name at the hearing, said the fence repairs were made to remove blight and improve pedestrian safety and that the owner sought a building-permit pathway after DBIraised the issue. The appellant said planning approved a variance for a 4-foot fence in 2019 and that the variance was recorded in 2021, but subsequent DPW requirements and a denied (then appealed) minor sidewalk encroachment permit prevented final issuance of the DBI repair permit. The appellant asked the board to reverse the order or remand the matter to Superior Court, saying: "we humbly request this board to remand this case to our San Francisco superior court so the judge can require DBI to rescind and reverse their unlawful violation notices and direct DBI to issue new decisions acknowledging their errors."

DBI staff responded that the ownerdid not obtain the necessary permit before replacing the fence and pointed to an exhibit showing the 2017 installation "without obtaining a DBI permit" and with solid panels beyond the exemption specification. Staff also explained that DBI plan-check approval alone does not equal a final permit; the issuing process requires sign-offs from other departments, including DPW.

Members of the five-member board debated the scope of their authority (limited to legal or factual error in DBI's order), the length of time since the initial 2017 notice of violation, and practical remedies. Several commissioners said they saw no clear legal error by DBI but expressed sympathy for the appellantand concern that interdepartmental holds were delaying resolution.

Commissioner Summer moved, and Commissioner Shattuck seconded, a motion to uphold DBI's order of abatement including the assessment of costs but to hold enforcement in abeyance for 180 days to allow the outstanding DPW and permit issues to be addressed. The board voted unanimously to carry the motion.

The board did not rescind the order; instead, the abeyance pauses enforcement for the specified period. If the outstanding items are not resolved within that timeframe, the order and assessments may proceed according to the board's action and applicable city processes.

The meeting record shows no public commenters on this item and the board adjourned at 10:44 a.m.