Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Illegal Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement appeal at 221 Eleventh Street continued to February as board urges planning review
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board continued the order-of-abatement case for 221 Eleventh Street to its February meeting to allow parties to pursue permits or planning review after debate over fee incentives, legalization of artist housing, and landlord–tenant responsibility.
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on Nov. 14 continued a contested order of abatement for 221 Eleventh Street to its February meeting, giving the parties more time to pursue planning and permitting options after a disputed landlord–tenant dispute.
Francisco Gutierrez, attorney for owner Don Ramon’s Real Estate LLC, asked the board to reverse or modify the order because the tenant had, he said, rented and sublet residential space without owner consent in breach of the commercial lease. Gutierrez cited the building code and asked the board to consider a modification that would allow the parties 60 days to obtain permits and up to 18 months to complete repairs if the board found the violations were not “serious and imminent hazards.”
Deputy Director of Permit Services Dan Lawrie told commissioners that Department records show an enforcement history dating to an initial notice in August 2015 and a director’s hearing in June 2017 (NOV201652291), and recommended upholding the order. He said the department had found a change of use from commercial to residential without a certificate of occupancy and that the permitting system showed no active permit or application at the Eleventh Street address.
Permit consultant Jeremy Paul, who said he filed a conditional-use authorization application in 2015 and provided a transaction receipt showing the tenant paid $2,144 in fees, told the board he believed the space was legalizable as artist housing with accessory residential use. Tenants’ counsel (identified in the record as Lisa Jimpowley) disputed the owner’s account, saying her clients sought permits and paid for the conditional-use filing until, she said, the owner withdrew authorization; she argued the occupants have residential protections even when a lease is labeled commercial.
Commissioners discussed whether legalization would require Planning Commission review under local “Avalos” legislation and whether the board could condition fee reductions. Staff explained that conditional-use review and planning review would be required to change the use and that fines are assessed based on inspection valuation; the department also said supervisors have discretion to reduce assessments in some cases. Commissioners expressed a preference for leaving the assessment in place as an incentive for resolution while encouraging parties to pursue legalization.
Commissioner Walker moved to continue the matter to the board’s February meeting to allow time for permit filing or planning action; Commissioner Constance seconded. The board took a roll-call vote and the motion carried unanimously (Vice President Gilman; Commissioners Constance, Lee, McCarthy, Walker, Warshall voting yes).
The board’s continuance keeps the order of abatement pending and directs staff to monitor whether the owner files permits or takes other steps toward legalization; commissioners noted the decision to revisit fees would be made later, subject to legal limits on the board’s authority to condition or rescind fines.
The case will return to the board in February with any updates from the Department of Building Inspection and Planning.
