Abatement Board allows Claytons time to redraw plans but upholds past fees

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on Nov. 16 granted an appeal by homeowners Francis and Christine Ryan for work at 1024–1026 Clayton Street but set conditions the owners must meet to avoid enforcement.

The board voted 6–1 to uphold the director’s order of abatement while holding that order in abeyance for 18 months, require submission of architectural plans within six months and to uphold fees already incurred. Commissioners also agreed no additional administrative fees for staff time would be charged while the case is resolved. Commissioner Lee cast the lone dissenting vote.

The Ryans asked the commission to rescind parts of the order and to waive fees, saying they had relied on earlier permits and communications from city staff. A Ryan representative told the board they had undertaken fresh radius notifications and were working with city planning and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to redraw and consolidate plans so all work could be processed on a single permit.

Joe Duffy of DBI told the commission his office found a clerical error in an earlier letter that had told the homeowners their violations were cleared, and said DBI had corrected that mistake. Duffy described the fees under discussion as largely code-enforcement and staff-time costs rather than building-permit penalties. He told the board that $1,668.44 had been paid related to the 2014 notice of violation and $312.80 remained outstanding from an older matter; most of the recorded staff time predates the incorrect clearance letter.

Neighbor counsel Mark Cherniv urged the board not to waive fees or allow the structure to remain, arguing that the Ryans had built significant unpermitted work and that documentary evidence showed the rooftop deck and stair work were not covered by the permits cited by the homeowners. The Ryans’ representative said the architect’s earlier emails and DBI conversations had given the family reason to believe steps taken in 2006–2007 were sufficient and that they were now moving to correct and legalize the work.

During deliberations commissioners expressed concern about precedent and the need to encourage compliance with the building code. Several members said they were willing to provide the maximum allowable time for plan submission and to pause the accrual of any new administrative fee for staff time while the applicants proceed with planning and permits, while still holding the owners accountable for fees incurred to date.

The board’s action preserves the order of abatement but prevents immediate enforcement while the appellants pursue the permit and planning process; it also leaves intact past fees the department documented. The appellants were given six months to file plans and 18 months before the abatement would be enforced. The commission signaled it expects the Ryans to work with DBI and City Planning to resolve outstanding plan and permit issues.

The decision is procedural and does not adjudicate the underlying compliance questions; it sets deadlines and conditions for the property owners to legalize the structures through normal permit channels.