Abatement Appeals Board reverses one abatement, upholds others after dispute over HOA responsibility

The Abatement Appeals Board on Wednesday reversed an order of abatement tied to Unit 606 at 2999 California Street, finding the work related to a common water pipe and noting that the homeowners association had accepted responsibility and reimbursed the owners for some costs. The board voted unanimously to reverse the NOV and directed the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to reissue the notice naming the HOA or property management as appropriate.

The decision followed staff testimony from Chief Plumbing Inspector Steve Penelli that the department's records showed multiple notices and an expired permit for work done in 2006, and owner testimony from Kimberly Parlari that the HOA and Property Management 1 had coordinated and paid for repairs on the owners' behalf. Commissioners focused on which entity should be the legally responsible party and concluded the department should relaunch enforcement against the HOA/property manager rather than the Unit 606 owners.

Elsewhere in the Abatement Appeals Board docket, the commission sustained DBI's abatement order for 450 Jones Street, a five-story residential hotel, after staff reported a year-old notice for required sprinkler heads at garbage-chute hoppers (Housing Code Sec. 906) and rooftop debris. Staff said the property had been repeatedly inspected and that no sprinkler-permit application had been filed; the owners acknowledged cleanup but said contractors have been reluctant to bid the retrofit and supplied a $16,000 estimate for four sprinklers. The board upheld the hearing officer's order by unanimous vote, citing public-safety concerns.

On a separate appeal involving 225 Anderson Street, DBI staff reported the building had recently become vacant but maintained that the cited items (including lack of an operational heating source and hazardous front stairs) present a safety risk. The commission upheld the hearing officer's order but granted the owner a 30-day advisement to obtain permits and complete the required work; the finding makes clear that if the work is not finished within the extension the order will take effect and the department can record it and begin billing for enforcement and reinspection costs.

For 456 Urbana Drive, DBI presented multiple violations tied to additions that diverged from approved plans, repeated stop-work noncompliance and planning concerns about height, window patterns and other as-built changes. After hearing that planning needed to pursue environmental and discretionary review of the as-built conditions, the board voted unanimously to uphold the order of abatement.

The board's actions split two broad issues: (1) cases where staff concluded owners had not corrected violations within the time allowed and public-safety hazards remained, and (2) the Unit 606 matter, where commissioners found the enforcement record may have been misdirected and remanded the matter to DBI for reissuance to the homeowner association or property-management company. DBI staff said they will follow the board's direction and reissue notices as needed.