Abatement Appeals Board upholds order for unpermitted roof addition at 1575 Eleventh Avenue

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously June 15, 2016, to uphold an order of abatement and assess costs for an unpermitted roof addition at 1575 Eleventh Avenue after Department of Building Inspection staff said the property owner failed to appear.

Joe Duffy, Department of Building Inspection (DBI), told the board that complaint No. 201451611 was received Feb. 18, 2014, and that an inspection found "a vertical addition approximately 120 square feet being constructed at the rear of the property," about 60 percent complete and visible from the street. DBI said a notice of violation was issued and the corrective actions required included stopping work, filing a building permit, obtaining required Planning and Building Department approvals and inspections, and paying applicable fees.

Duffy recounted the case history: the matter was referred to code enforcement in April 2014, went to a director's hearing in early June 2014, and an order of abatement was posted at the property July 14, 2014. DBI said the owner received continuances through late 2015; a permit to remove nonpermitted framing and restore the property was issued Jan. 25, 2016, but DBI had no inspection history for remediation. Duffy said an order of abatement was issued Feb. 12, 2016. He told commissioners the current fees reported by senior building inspector Henshin totaled $1,432.50 and that the department had not applied the typical 9x penalty on the permit application.

Commissioner Gilman asked whether it was common for such work to continue over two years and raised safety concerns; Duffy said it was unusual and likely unsafe but not necessarily an imminent hazard, and noted legalization through planning could take nine to 12 months. Duffy said the permit issued Jan. 25 includes an extended completion window (about a year) but that the code enforcement abatement process runs independently of the permit timeline.

When the board asked whether the appellant had been notified and whether they appeared, staff said the owner had contacted the AAB secretary earlier and had requested a 30-day continuance that was granted, but the appellant was not at the hearing. A representative of the City Attorney's Office read a provision of the building code stating that when an appellant does not appear at a hearing, "the order of the building official shall be immediately effective from the date the order was issued." DBI confirmed the owner had been mailed notice dated May 27, 2016; staff also said the owner had cited financial hardship and storm damage as reasons for delay.

Commissioner Walker moved to uphold the order of abatement, including assessment of costs, and the motion was seconded. The board conducted a roll-call vote; Commissioners Gilman, Conston, Lee, McCarthy and Walker all voted yes and the motion carried unanimously.

The Abatement Appeals Board recorded no public comment on the item and adjourned the AAB meeting, pausing briefly to reconvene as the Building Inspection Commission.