Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Demolition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds notice of violation for alleged demolition beyond permitted scope at Twentieth Avenue property

San Francisco Board of Appeals · July 31, 2019
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals upheld a notice of violation finding that the work at 2027 Twentieth Avenue exceeded the permitted scope and constituted demolition; the board voted 4-1 to deny the owners’ appeal and left the owners to seek conditional-use authorization/variance or face enforcement.

The Board of Appeals on July 31 upheld a notice of violation issued by the Planning Department alleging that work at 2027 Twentieth Avenue exceeded the scope of permitted demolition and altered the building footprint without required approvals. The board denied the appeal 4-1.

Counsel for the property owners told the board that the contractor encountered unexpected dry rot and that repairs led to wider dismantling than anticipated; the owners said the work aimed to repair and rebuild and that the project was intended to produce modest family housing rather than a speculative flip. ‘‘This home is intended for our granddaughter,’’ a family representative said, asking the board to weigh equity in enforcement.

Planning and DBI presented aerial photos and on-site inspection evidence showing that walls previously depicted as remaining in permit drawings had been fully removed; Planning said revised permit exhibits submitted after the demolition misrepresented existing conditions and that the work therefore exceeded permitted scope. Planning urged the board to uphold the notice of violation; DBI confirmed permits were suspended and that some inspections had occurred in allowed areas while flagged areas were supposed to be halted.

After deliberation the board concluded the zoning administrator did not abuse discretion in issuing the notice of violation and denied the appeal on that basis (vote 4-1). Commissioners explained the proper remedy is to bring a conditional-use authorization and any variance before Planning; if the owner does not pursue compliance or if approvals are denied the city can escalate enforcement, including referral to the City Attorney. The board noted penalties could accrue under the notice process while the parties pursue compliance.