Abatement order upheld for 188 Winfield Street; board orders assessment of costs
Loading...
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously upheld a Department of Building Inspection order of abatement for 188 Winfield Street, finding that permit plans misrepresented existing conditions. The board voted to assess about $1,800 in fees; the appellant cited PG&E meter delays as the remaining barrier to final sign-off.
The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously voted to uphold an order of abatement for 188 Winfield Street and to include assessment of costs after a contested appeal on Oct. 21, 2020.
The hearing centered on the Department of Building Inspection(DBI) finding that a permit application (20170268752) misrepresented existing conditions for a detached garage conversion. Chief building inspector Maurice Hernandez told the board the plans showed the structure as a one-story building over a basement when, in fact, inspectors found a one-story garage over a crawl space and evidence of excavation exceeding the heights permitted in some areas. "The numbers did not add up," Hernandez said, describing photographic evidence and site inspections that led staff to recommend upholding the order and imposing costs.
Appellant Kim Nguyen and her representatives said special inspections and engineering reviews had been completed and submitted, and that DBI staff had approved much of the work. Contractor Henry Karnilowicz said the project still awaited an electric meter from PG&E before DBI's final sign-off: "We need the AIC letter before we can get the green tag," Karnilowicz said, describing communications with PG&E and an expected meter-install timeline. Contractor Tad Nguyen disputed aspects of the notice of violation and said the team provided soil reports and other documentation.
In rebuttal, Hernandez pointed to the complaint-tracking record showing that work continued after a notice of violation and said the case had been referred to code enforcement. He also noted that the owner had a prior, related enforcement matter at a nearby address, 217 Virginia.
Commissioners questioned whether the original permits allowed excavation and whether subsequent revision plans addressed the additional excavation DBI observed. Hernandez confirmed that the original permits permitted limited excavation in some areas but that actual excavation reached depths of up to about two feet in places where plans had indicated only inches, prompting the department to seek corrective action.
Vice President Tam moved to uphold the order of abatement and include the assessment of cost; the motion was seconded and carried on a roll-call vote with President Alexander, Vice President Tam, Commissioner Beto, Commissioner Moss and Commissioner Summer voting yes. Inspector Hernandez estimated the administrative and enforcement fees at about $1,800.
The boardrecorded that, under the building code, it may reverse costs only upon a showing of substantial error by the department; the city attorney advised that the board's options were to uphold, modify, or reverse the order. The board did not find such an error and sustained the order.
The board did not grant the extended period for completing PG&E work in lieu of upholding the abatement; questions about timing and equipment procurement for the meter installation remained with PG&E and the project team. The decision concludes the appeal hearing; the board will issue written findings within the timeline required by code.
