Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement upheld for 423–425 Noe St.; board assesses costs after owner refuses routine inspection
Summary
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board upheld an order of abatement and assessed related costs for 423–425 Noe St. after staff said inspectors could not access the building for required routine inspections; owner Freer Schmid said repairs were completed and argued the city lacks authority to force an inspection without a warrant.
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously on Jan. 18 to uphold an order of abatement for 423–425 Noe Street and to assess abatement costs, after a contested hearing over inspection access.
Rosemary Boskey, chief housing inspector for the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), told the board inspectors could not access parts of the four‑unit building despite repeated requests dating back to 2002 and that visible peeling paint on the north wall raised concerns about lead hazards for a pre‑1979 structure. Boskey said routine inspections are required for apartment buildings and that staff had documented attempts to gain access and had photographic evidence of the exterior conditions.
Owner Freer Schmid told the board he repaired the cited items, including a cracked front step and peeling paint, and argued the work was completed within the notice period. Schmid disputed the department’s claim that he was required to allow inspectors on site without a warrant and characterized the enforcement as retaliatory. “This is a free country,” Schmid said during rebuttal, arguing the city cannot compel an inspection without a court order.
Boskey and DBI staff responded that the routine inspection program is codified and that request letters and the notice of violation cite relevant housing‑code sections; staff said the department may consult the city attorney about obtaining an inspection warrant if access is refused. The city attorney present clarified that the matter before the board was the order of abatement and that the inability to complete a routine inspection was connected to the department’s inability to verify that repairs were completed.
Commissioner Walker said the program exists to ensure units rented to tenants remain safe and described routine inspections as standard practice for landlords in the city.
The board’s motion to uphold the abatement and assess costs carried on a unanimous roll‑call vote. The order and assessment remain in effect; staff said the next procedural steps could include further coordination with the city attorney about inspection warrants if DBI cannot confirm repairs by other means.
The board adjourned after hearing general public comment (none) and noting setup time for the next commission meeting.
