Abatement Appeals Board upholds order for 232 Talbert Street, assesses costs

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on Sept. 18, 2019 upheld an order of abatement for 232 Talbert Street after concluding an unpermitted interior staircase posed a life-safety hazard, and the board voted unanimously to assess the department’s costs.

The board heard from the Housing Inspection Division, where acting senior housing inspector Jim Lawrie said a notice of violation for the property was issued Oct. 25, 2018, citing an unsafe interior staircase between the second floor and the garage. Lawrie said photographs in the department’s packet showed tread depth below the code standard (less than about 10.5 inches) and a railing that was not compliant. A subsequent inspection on Sept. 5, 2019 found the staircase removed; Lawrie told the board the removal occurred without an issued permit and recommended upholding the order and assessing costs.

Owner Ashir Radhan Bridal told the board he and his wife bought the building in 1997 and that the structure and stairs “were already there.” He corrected an address error on the notice and asked the board for leniency, saying he rents units to Section 8 tenants and is facing financial strain after a recent family expense. “I’m here to comply with the law, and I want to do the right thing to be able to fix it, and just legalize the thing,” Bridal said, and he requested six months to complete the work and asked the board to consider reducing charges.

Commissioners questioned whether the lower-level unit at the property had ever been legalized as a two-unit dwelling and asked staff to check planning and permit records. Members noted the case may reflect a broader issue of properties that changed occupancy without appropriate permits and asked that building inspection and planning coordinate any follow-up. Brad Ressy of the City Attorney’s Office reminded the owner that, if the board upholds the order and assesses costs, there is no procedure to return to the board for reconsideration.

After deliberation, a motion to uphold the order of abatement and assess all department costs was made and seconded. On a roll-call vote, President Warshall, Vice President Lee, Commissioner Clinch, Commissioner Constan, Commissioner McCarthy and Commissioner Walker voted yes; Commissioner Moss was excused. The motion carried unanimously.

The board’s decision leaves in place the abatement order and the assessed departmental costs; commissioners asked that any planning or building-occupancy follow-up be coordinated with the owner and relevant city departments. The board then adjourned and announced a short recess before reconvening as the Building Inspection Commission.