Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Legalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board continues 411 Marina Boulevard case to allow inspection, legal review of moratorium vs. legalization
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board on Jan. 21 continued its hearing on 411 Marina Boulevard to Feb. 18 to allow an inspector to survey safety conditions and for staff and the city attorney to advise whether a hardship moratorium under San Francisco building code section 1058.208.03 is appropriate or whether the owner should pursue legalization permits under recent legislation.
The Abatement Appeals Board on Jan. 21 continued an appeal for 411 Marina Boulevard to its Feb. 18 meeting to allow staff inspections and legal review of possible remedies.
John Incheon, presenting for the Department, told the board that “411 Marina Boulevard is a single family dwelling is illegal use,” and recommended upholding the notice of violation. Commissioners discussed two discrete options for the owner: pursue the new legalization path recently associated with Supervisor Chu’s legislation, which would allow planning review and potentially legalize an existing secondary unit if it predates the cutoff; or pursue a hardship moratorium under section 1058.208.03 of the San Francisco building code that would allow the condition to remain if the board finds no serious or imminent hazards.
John Kevlin, attorney for the property owner (representing Anthony Phillips), described the downstairs unit as having been created in the early 1990s for an ill relative and said it now houses a 75‑year‑old grandmother. Kevlin said the owner prefers the moratorium as a quicker route to keep the unit intact but that the owner is prepared to pursue the legalization process if necessary. “If we had our choice, we’d probably just stick with the moratorium,” Kevlin said, adding that the owner has engaged an architect and is prepared to file applications if required.
Deputy Sweeney and other staff told commissioners that granting a moratorium requires specific findings that there are no serious or imminent hazards and that an inspector should visit the property to collect the evidence necessary for such findings. Commissioners asked staff to send an inspector and requested code excerpts and legal guidance so the board can make the required findings if a moratorium is considered.
The board voted unanimously to continue the matter to the next meeting (Feb. 18), with staff directed to arrange an inspection and to coordinate with the city attorney’s office on the criteria for a moratorium and the implications of the legalization process. The continuance pauses enforcement while the board considers whether to make the specific findings required by the moratorium provision or to allow the owner to pursue permits under the legalization statute.
