Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board Upholds Order Against Jackson Street Owner
Summary
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on Oct. 21, 2020, unanimously denied an appeal and upheld an order of abatement for a Jackson Street property, finding inspectors had documented extensive unpermitted work; the board also approved assessed costs.
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board unanimously denied an appeal and upheld an order of abatement against the owner of a Jackson Street property in a vote Oct. 21, 2020. The board also approved the imposition of assessed costs tied to the department’s enforcement action.
Chief Inspector Mauricio Hernandez, representing the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), told the board the case centers on notice of violation 201888993 and that an inspector amended the notice after an on-site visit on Nov. 26, 2018, documenting work beyond the scope of issued permits. Hernandez said photographs and the amended notice showed extensive roof-level work, skylight additions, light-well infill on upper floors and creation of roof-deck and living space that were not covered by existing permits. "On the record, we have 11/26/2018, and that's where the notice of violation was amended to reflect all the excess in work," Hernandez said.
Appellant counsel objected to the staff summary and urged the board to rescind the order as procedurally infirm. Attorney Mr. Cannon argued that the director’s hearing and the staff case summary relied on multiple levels of hearsay and that permit submissions by the owner had not been processed: "That case summary prepared by staff contains multiple levels of hearsay," Cannon said, and he told commissioners the owner had submitted plans that would address the notice of violation but that the plans had not been acted on for years.
Owner Bob Corman called into the hearing and told the board he had repeatedly submitted plans and met with DBI staff, and that delays in permit issuance had caused additional water damage to the building. "I've done everything I can and been asked to do to comply," Corman said.
Commissioners questioned DBI about which prior permits existed and which work exceeded those permits. Hernandez acknowledged the property had a complex permit history dating back to 2010 and that some plan submittals were incomplete or did not reflect the existing infill. After discussion, Commissioner McCarthy moved to deny the appeal, uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment of costs; the motion was clarified by the City Attorney and carried unanimously on a roll-call vote with President Alexander Toot, Vice President Tam, Commissioners Clinch, Jacobo, McCarthy and Moss voting yes.
The board’s action upholds DBI’s finding that unpermitted work existed and affirms the department’s authority to assess costs tied to enforcement. The case record includes the DBI notice of violation and the amended findings from the November 2018 inspection; commissioners and parties were directed to the department and planning enforcement for any further administrative steps.
The board closed the matter and moved to the next agenda item.
