Board of Appeals upholds notice of violation for Mira Loma property, denies appeal

Board President Daryl Honda and a 4–0 majority of the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 9 denied an appeal of a notice of violation tied to a single‑family property at 121 Mira Loma Drive, concluding the zoning administrator had not erred in enforcement or in assessing recoverable time and materials.

The appellants sought to overturn a notice issued Aug. 17, 2016 alleging the property was being used in a way that exceeded accessory‑use limits for an RH1D single‑family district — specifically, storage of equipment and employees arriving to pick up materials for an electrical contracting business. The appellant and a representative told the board they had repeatedly called and e‑mailed Planning staff and said they were not getting timely responses.

Scott Sanchez, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board staff had documented a timeline of complaints, two site visits and multiple e‑mail exchanges dating to June and August 2016 and that staff had worked with the property owner to reduce neighborhood impacts. Sanchez said Planning did not assess penalties but sought recovery of staff time and materials; he cited an outstanding time‑and‑materials charge of approximately $1,270 and offered to review whether the recorded time was correct.

Sanchez displayed a June 9 message and an Aug. 22 e‑mail in which the permit holder (identified in staff records as Mr. Yang) said employees would not come onto the property and would instead rely on public‑street pick‑ups; staff kept the case open for monitoring. Planning told the board that photographs and site‑visit observations—some submitted by complainants—supported the department’s finding that the accessory use exceeded allowed limits prior to the August agreement.

Appellants and their representative emphasized gaps in phone records and said earlier building‑department action in March had resolved a separate storage issue; the board and staff clarified there were two separate enforcement actions (a DBI storage/abatement matter that closed in March and a subsequent Planning complaint that led to the June–August timeline and the Aug. 17 notice). Commissioners pressed the parties for documentary evidence and noted the appeals file lacked a full brief and photographic exhibits that Planning staff said existed in their case materials.

Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal, finding the zoning administrator did not err or abuse discretion. The motion carried 4–0 (Commissioner Bobby Wilson absent).

The board’s decision leaves in place the department’s enforcement finding and the administrative time‑and‑materials charge; Sanchez told the board staff could review the time accounting if the appellant requested it. The meeting record notes that administrative fees and the $650 appeal filing fee are separate elements of the department’s billings.

The matter concluded with the board’s denial of the appeal; the appellant was informed of their options under the applicable appeal/rehearing rules.