Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal 5030 Third topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies zoning‑violation appeal for 5030 Third Street, owner alleges fraud by tenant
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of a zoning administrator’s notice of violation for 5030 Third Street (complaint 200166966), concluding the zoning administrator did not abuse discretion; the property owner alleged the appellant committed fraud, altered the building and is squatting in commercial space.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5‑0 to deny an appeal of a zoning administrator’s notice of violation and penalty decision affecting properties at 5030 and 5024 Third Street (complaint number 200166966).
The property owner, identified in the record as Jadalla, urged the board to deny the appeal and described a long enforcement history dating to December 2018: he said the appellant (identified in filings as Ben Cannon / Lady Benjamin) had performed unapproved demolition and wiring, changed locks without permission, occupied retail space without authorization, caused sidewalk damage during work by a third‑party telecommunications contractor, and left thousands of dollars in unpaid utility and cleaning liens. The owner said those issues have forced him to halt showings and added civil stress and expense.
Planning Department staff (Scott Sanchez) reviewed the enforcement timeline: a complaint opened in December 2018, a notice of enforcement in August 2019, multiple site visits in 2020, a zoning administrator hearing on Sept. 2, 2020, and a violation/penalty decision issued Sept. 30, 2020. Planning staff said the appellant had several opportunities to participate, requested multiple continuances and failed to file a timely brief; Planning recommended upholding the zoning administrator’s decision.
Deputy Director Joe Duffy (DBI) noted the violations run with the land and that the property owner would be responsible for compliance; he confirmed there are outstanding notices of violation and that the department has not received all permits to bring the property into compliance. Planning staff noted penalties of up to $250 per day can accrue for continuing violations once the board’s decision is final.
Commissioners discussed procedural fairness and the standard of review (error or abuse of discretion). Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator neither erred nor abused discretion; the motion passed 5‑0.
The board’s decision leaves the notice of violation and penalty decision in place; Planning and DBI staff said they would work with the property owner and tenant (if engaged) to seek compliance and collect any accrued penalties and time‑and‑materials charges.
