Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permits Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DBI finds misrepresentation at 214 State Street; urges Planning review with detailed staff record
Summary
DBI staff told the Building Inspection Commission that permit applications for 214 State Street misrepresented existing conditions, leading to suspended permits and notices of violation; the commission recommended sending a clear chronology and staff report to the Planning Commission and that DBI staff attend the Planning hearing.
The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection told the Building Inspection Commission on May 16 that three years of permits and complaints tied to 214 State Street show “misrepresentation” in the original permit applications and work that exceeded the scope of issued permits. Chief Building Inspector Patrick O’Reardon summarized DBI’s chronology, noting permits filed from 2013–2015, suspended permits at Planning’s request and two active notices of violation: one for misrepresentation/over‑scope work and another under the vacant building ordinance. Work has been stopped since Dec. 24, 2014, except for hazard mitigation that stabilized the site.
The project sponsor, Todd Mavis, who identified himself as one of the owners, told the commission his team accepts responsibility for inaccuracies in the permanent applications filed years ago and that the contractor attempted to preserve the structure. Mavis asked the commission to support DBI staff’s present determination that the work did not constitute an unlawful demolition under DBI’s code definition so that the sponsor may continue the Planning review and obtain a permit to complete the home.
Neighbors and community representatives sharply disagreed. Several public commenters — including Jerry Dratler and Ozzie Rohn of a neighborhood council — described undermining of adjacent properties, alleged serial permitting and called for accountability, fines or prosecution. They urged the commission to issue a clear, documented statement of what DBI staff did and when so Planning commissioners could better evaluate any penalty or entitlement question.
Commissioners pressed DBI staff on process fixes. Staff, including senior inspectors and plan-check engineers, said the case exposed the limits of an over‑the‑counter (Form 8) intake process and the risk of serial permits: small, rapid approvals that cumulatively alter a property beyond what a single plan check would reveal. DBI said it is instituting mandatory start‑of‑work inspections for major Form 3 alterations, plans to require two‑inspector milestone checks on high‑profile projects, and is building system flags in the new permit platform to surface addresses with multiple active permits.
The commission did not vote on penalties at the meeting but recommended DBI prepare a clear, color‑coded packet (site‑permit drawings overlaid with addenda and revision sets), a chronology of actions and the notices issued. Commissioners asked that DBI’s staff attend the Planning Commission hearing to present DBI’s findings and to keep stakeholders informed of next steps.
The commission’s recommended next step is to transmit DBI’s report and timeline to Planning, with a staff representative available to answer questions at the Planning hearing.
