Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unlawful Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building Inspection Commission continues appeal over alleged unlawful demolition at 1681 Tenth Avenue
Summary
The commission continued an appeal of DBI’s May 3 notice finding an unlawful demolition at 1681 Tenth Avenue after the homeowners and DBI identified a disputed square‑footage figure; commissioners asked staff and the appellants to reconcile assessor, permit and plan records and return with updated documentation.
The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission on July 21 continued an appeal of a Department of Building Inspection (DBI) notice of decision that found an unlawful residential demolition at 1681 Tenth Avenue and imposed a five‑year moratorium on permits for the site.
DBI acting deputies presented the department’s findings, telling commissioners that inspections and a complaint showed the structure had been largely demolished without required work permits. Acting Deputy Director Joe Duffy said the department determined “an unlawful demolition occurred,” and that the department followed the code and hearing procedures that led to a May 3 notice of decision. He described the penalty under the city’s building code: in most unlawful‑demolition findings no permit authorizing construction or alteration for that site may be issued for five years except in narrow, specified circumstances. “We were, to be honest with you, pretty shocked that the building was… demolished under a site permit,” Duffy said during his presentation.
Attorneys for the homeowners disputed a key factual point in DBI’s written materials: attorney Justin Zucker of Rubin, Junior & Rose told the commission the site permit and plan set show the pre‑work house measured 2,701 square feet, while DBI had relied on the assessor’s record showing 1,340 square feet. Zucker requested that DBI correct the director’s order if the higher square footage is confirmed so any future planning review or rebuilding is not constrained by an incorrect recorded size. “We respectfully request DBI’s director’s order be corrected to reflect the true size of the home of 2,701 square feet,” Zucker said.
Homeowner Miesang (Sung) Kim described hardship from the vacant lot and asked the commission to consider options that would allow a family home to be rebuilt. A written public comment from a neighbor documented receiving notice of adjacent demolition on Oct. 26, 2020 and raised concerns about lack of proper notice and neighborhood impacts.
Commissioners questioned DBI and the appellant about the record‑keeping that produced differing square‑footage figures, the planning department’s role (whether a single‑family rebuild or two‑unit redevelopment could proceed), and the limits of the commission’s authority under the administrative code. City counsel reminded the body that the commission cannot waive building‑code provisions; to avoid a moratorium the commission would have to overturn the director’s decision, a course some commissioners said they were reluctant to take.
President Angus McCarthy moved, and the commission seconded and approved, a continuance to give DBI and the homeowners time to pursue an assessor’s correction or other documentation that would allow staff to present an amended record. The commission voted unanimously to continue the item and asked staff to return with an updated chronology and any corrected square‑footage evidence.
The commission did not reverse the director’s May 3 decision at the July 21 meeting. Next steps recorded by the commission were to (1) allow DBI staff and the appellants to work on confirming legal square footage with the assessor and other permit records and (2) return the item to the commission with updated documentation.
