Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After lengthy debate, commission orders enforcement path and reimposes prior design conditions at 1228 Funston Ave
Summary
The commission reviewed a staff‑initiated discretionary enforcement case at 1228 Funston Avenue to legalize extensive unpermitted additions. After hearing owners’ testimony that they were misled by a consultant, neighbors’ objections and lengthy commissioner debate, the commission voted 5–1 to require compliance with the commission's earlier (2017) design conditions, impose a stepwise enforcement schedule, and record a notice of abatement.
The Planning Commission on March 30 took discretionary enforcement action on a long‑running unpermitted addition at 1228 Funston Avenue, concluding a months‑long enforcement history with a 5–1 vote to revert the project to earlier commission conditions and require enforceable timelines.
Staff architect David Winslow laid out the file history: an unauthorized three‑story rear addition and facade alterations were built without permits beginning in 2014–2015; a prior discretionary approval in 2017 required corrective work that the property owners did not complete. Winslow recommended discretionary review and provided standard enforcement conditions: file for a final permit within 90 days, obtain a permit within 180 days, monthly progress reporting if construction exceeds 30 days, and certificate of final completion for the added units before abatement is lifted.
Owners Elena Asturias and her mother described being victimized by an engineer who assured them permits were in place and said they sued that professional; they asked the commission to allow legalization plus two new units to help cover remediation costs. The project sponsor's representative argued that the addition is structurally sound and that removing built work would preclude adding the two extra units and reduce housing.
Several commissioners expressed frustration over the years of noncompliance and the precedent of allowing unpermitted work to persist. Commissioners sought assurances about inspections and noted the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) must conduct structural and life‑safety inspections before occupancy. Deputy city attorney Kristen Jensen clarified that the Housing Accountability Act does not bar the commission from enforcing prior conditions; the project is not code‑compliant under Planning Code §174.
After extended discussion, the commission voted 5–1 to require the owner to comply with the prior 2017 conditions (option 1 in staff memo), adopt standard enforcement conditions (90/180‑day deadlines; monthly reporting) and directed staff to record a notice of abatement on the property deed to make future buyers aware of the enforcement status. Commissioner Diamond dissented. Staff said the enforcement legislation soon to take effect will provide additional administrative tools, and DBI will proceed with inspections as part of the corrective path.
