Abatement Appeals Board upholds order for Presidio Avenue building; owner given 60 days to complete repairs

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board unanimously upheld an order of abatement on Aug. 21, 2013, for 326–330 Presidio Avenue, directing the property owner to complete required repairs within 60 days and waiving forward departmental cost assessments during that compliance period.

The case arose from a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued after a Housing Inspection Services complaint inspection on Oct. 8, 2009. In a packed hearing, the owner, Bridal Quinlan, and a tenant, John Pax, offered sharply different accounts of why the work has not been completed. Staff recommended upholding the NOV and the resulting abatement order.

Quinlan told the board she bought the building in 2005 and acknowledged the violations but said she has been ready to perform the repairs. She said she had pulled permits, prebooked temporary lodging for the tenant during work and assembled contractors and materials. Quinlan said the tenant repeatedly denied access and demanded an extensive bathroom remodel beyond the code‑required repairs: “I have the receipt for the shower valve, and the shower valve cost $1,621,” she testified.

The tenant, John Pax, urged the board to deny the owners’ appeal and described ongoing problems he says predate the current owners, including tile failure, a deteriorated shower pan and water infiltration. “There were 8 violations. He has corrected none of them,” Pax said, and presented photos documenting water damage and alleged structural deterioration.

Commissioners questioned staff and witnesses about whether inspectors had attempted tenant outreach and whether the repairs as proposed would trigger additional permitting or design changes. Staff noted that a permit had been pulled recently and that the plumbing code can impose minimum clearances when showers are replaced; any scope changes would be addressed through revised plans and inspections. Tony Greco, Chief Building Inspector, said inspectors would write additional corrections or require revised plans if they found structural issues beyond the original permit scope.

After deliberation, Commissioner McCarthy moved to uphold the order of abatement based on the NOV findings and the testimony before the board. Commissioners amended the motion to allow the owner 60 days to complete the work, with a 30‑day check‑in, and to encourage department‑facilitated outreach that includes tenant and landlord mediation groups. The board also agreed to waive forward departmental cost assessments accruing during the 60‑day compliance period; past costs already accrued were not waived. The motion carried on a unanimous roll‑call vote.

Board counsel and staff clarified limits on compelling access: absent an emergency order for life‑safety reasons, a landlord cannot force entry without a court order. Staff said that if the 60‑day period expired without satisfactory progress and the owner had done what was reasonable (permits, contractor readiness), the matter could be referred to the department’s litigation committee and potentially to the city attorney for enforcement.

The board directed the department to facilitate outreach between the owner, tenant and community mediation groups to try to resolve access and scope questions before enforcement measures escalate. Staff noted typical assessment‑rate figures for context: roughly $170 an hour for inspector time and $52 an hour for administrative time; those figures inform how departmental costs are calculated if assessment resumes.

The commission’s action requires the owner to complete the repairs per the NOV and permits within 60 days. The board set a 30‑day check‑in to review progress; if the work is not completed, the department may refer the case for further enforcement, including possible court action to obtain access or to appoint a receiver if necessary.