Abatement order for 228 Day Street held pending payment after owner agrees to pay assessed costs

SAN FRANCISCO — The city’s Abatement Appeals Board on July 21 upheld an order of abatement for an unpermitted deck at 228 Day Street but agreed to reverse the order if the former owner pays assessed department costs within 15 days.

Senior housing inspector Matthew Green told the board the department opened the case after an anonymous complaint and site inspections in 2002 found a deck built without required permits. Green said a building permit was later issued in 2006 but expired without required inspections, the case was re-assigned to a new inspector, and a director’s hearing resulted in an order of abatement. “So far, the department has incurred total cost of $1,378.50,” Green said, describing inspections, case management and clerical time.

Appellant Karen Opp, who identified herself as the previous owner of 228 Day Street, said the work to legalize the deck has since been completed and that she did not receive timely notice of the director’s hearing. Opp said she had filed a change-of-address and later lodged a complaint with the U.S. Postal Service after not receiving hearing paperwork. She told the board she would take responsibility for payments and asked that the abatement not be placed on the new owner following her sale of the property.

Chief housing inspector Rosemarie Boskey said staff had mailed hearing notices to the address on record with the assessor and posted the property. Boskey said a title transfer appears to have taken place after the director’s hearing, and recommended the board seek a promise from the previous owner to pay the assessed costs before pursuing the current owner under Chapter 1 of the San Francisco Building Code.

Commissioners pressed the appellant on the timing of permit activity and whether the bulk of staff time and fees accrued prior to the recent re-noticing. In discussion the board adopted staff’s approach: hold the abatement in abeyance and reverse the abatement if the appellant pays the assessment in full within 15 days. The board recorded a unanimous roll-call vote in favor of the motion.

The board’s action preserves staff’s ability to pursue reimbursement if payment is not made: Boskey said staff would re-notice and seek recovery from the recorded owner if necessary. The meeting then moved to public comment for the Abatement Appeals Board (none offered) and adjourned before the regular Building Inspection Commission session.

Votes at a glance: The motion to uphold the abatement but hold enforcement pending payment (payment in full within 15 days to avoid reporting the abatement) passed by unanimous roll call vote.