Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board continues Clayton Street deck appeals while DBI and neighbors dispute permit history
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board continued two appeals over rooftop decks at 1026 Clayton Street after DBI staff said a 2015 permit application is pending in planning but may not address a 2003 notice; appellants showed documents they say closed the 2003 case and neighbors contested that account. The board asked staff to return with an updated file and plans.
SAN FRANCISCO — The Abatement Appeals Board on Oct. 19 continued two appeals related to a rooftop deck at 1026 Clayton Street after weeks of testimony from Department of Building Inspection staff, the property owners and neighbors about decades-old notices and more recent permit activity.
Joe Duffy, a DBI inspector, told the board the property is the subject of two open enforcement tracks: complaint/notice number 20345254 dating to 2003 and complaint 20140864 from Nov. 21, 2014. Duffy said DBI’s investigation found a roof deck installed on a detached garage and rear-yard decking and stairways that “do not match the configuration as described on the plans approved under permit application 9813944,” and that “there is no record of a permit to alter and/or construct” the observed conditions. He said a permit application filed in 2015 is on file but remains on hold with the planning department and may not resolve the 2003 issues.
The appellants, Ryan and Christine Ryan, countered with documents they said show a departmental revocation or closure of the 2003 matter and presented engineering affidavits and contractor statements attesting that the deck is serviceable. “We have this letter that it was closed, so we assumed it was all taken care of,” Christine Ryan said while circulating the files. The Ryans asked the board to close the 2003 notice and to waive assessments.
Neighbor counsel disputed that timeline and reliance. A neighbor’s attorney summarized contracts and communications showing the rooftop deck contract and discussions about a removable deck were negotiated after the permits that the appellants cited, and argued the Ryans “have been confusing the board for almost 10 years and trying to advance an illegal structure that they knew when it was constructed was being done illegally.” He laid out exhibits that, he said, show the rooftop deck contract was not signed until August of the mid-2000s and that earlier permits pulled were for roofing/dry-rot work, not deck construction.
DBI staff acknowledged paperwork errors in older files that gave the impression some matters were closed when appeals were pending, but said the underlying notices remain open because no building permit demonstrating compliance for the violations had been issued. Duffy also noted that a variance can expire if a required building permit was not issued within three years of the variance decision.
During deliberations, commissioners focused on whether the 2015 permit application includes plans addressing both the 2014 and 2003 violations and on the practical effect of renewing or honoring the older variance. Commissioner Walker moved to continue both appeals (appeals 6823 and 6824) to the board’s next meeting and to require staff to provide an updated file, including an assessment of what plans and work are needed to cure both notices; Commissioner Lee seconded. The motion carried unanimously on a roll-call vote.
Next steps: the board directed staff to verify whether the 2015 permit application includes drawings that would legalize the deck and stairs tied to the 2003 and 2014 notices and to bring an updated staff recommendation and file at the next Abatement Appeals Board meeting. The board did not rule on abatement or assessments at the hearing; both matters were continued.
