Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abatement Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board pauses enforcement on Alemanni Boulevard case, asks DBI to probe fee waiver
Summary
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board voted Jan. 15, 2020 to hold an order of abatement for 3033 Alemanni Boulevard in abeyance for 30 days and asked the Department of Building Inspection to consider waiving roughly $1,300 in investigation fees while the owner completes work and schedules inspections.
On Jan. 15, 2020, the San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board — which meets with the Building Inspection Commission — heard an appeal of an order of abatement for 3033 Alemanni Boulevard (case no. 6871333) and unanimously voted to hold enforcement for 30 days while the property owner pursues inspections and corrective work.
Maurice Hernandez, chief building inspector for the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), told the board that the department opened a complaint on Feb. 7, 2018 alleging work without permits and an illegal change of use. Hernandez said DBI issued a notice of violation, gave the owner options to legalize the work or remove the downstairs kitchen, and ultimately recommended the order of abatement be upheld with 60 days to obtain final permits and inspections. "The permit was issued back in September of 20 19," Hernandez said, but DBI found limited inspection history on the permits.
Gong K Chu, a structural engineer speaking for owner Mary Wong, said the owner filed a permit application in February 2018 and that planning delays stalled processing. Chu said the owner later revised plans (Aug. 13) and pulled a permit on Sept. 23, 2019, then sought contractors to remove the downstairs kitchen. "Now, we feel that all this time that the owner should not be fined because she's doing what they told you," Chu said, noting a job card with inspection signatures and estimating about one month to complete removal work and schedule inspections.
Board members questioned DBI about inspection records and permit timelines. DBI confirmed the permit’s listed expiration is Sept. 23, 2020, but said a notice of violation creates an independent compliance timeline that can supersede the permit’s schedule unless the department documents ongoing inspections. Legal counsel advised that, under the municipal code, the board would need to find "substantial error" to overturn the department's assessment of costs; the department may have separate authority to waive charges.
After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to postpone enforcement of the order of abatement for 30 days and to ask DBI to look into waiving or otherwise addressing the department's assessment of investigation costs (the packet lists the assessment at approximately $1,300). The board conducted a roll-call vote; Vice President Lee and Commissioners Alexander Toot, Clinch, Jacobo, McCarthy, Moss and Tam all voted yes, and the motion carried unanimously.
The board’s action places the case on temporary hold while work and inspections proceed and the department reviews the fee assessment; the item will return to the board if the conditions spelled out in the order are not met within the hold period. The meeting recessed at 9:39 a.m. and was scheduled to reconvene as the Building Inspection Commission at 10:00 a.m.
