Board upholds DBI permits tied to notice of violation at 57 Eureka after contested history of unit legality

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 1 voted 3–2 to uphold Department of Building Inspection (DBI) electrical and plumbing permits linked to a notice of violation at 57 Eureka Street, where residents and neighbors argued longstanding historical records indicate a legal downstairs kitchen and possible historic multi-family use.

Appellants Jordan Hubbard and Angela Cross told the board the water-department connection record from 1891 and assessor material suggest the downstairs space functioned with multiple wash basins and kitchen fixtures historically. They said those records — together with confidential assessor files from the 1930s — raise reasonable doubt about whether DBI’s NOV and the resulting abatement permits are appropriate without fuller review. "We plead with this board to recognize that this is not an illegal unit," Cross said, asking the board to return the matter to Planning for fuller research and to withhold removal of housing stock while records are gathered.

Owner Charles Lebedeff said the appeals were a delay tactic that would prevent him from complying with the notice of violation and abating the life-safety violations identified by DBI. He and DBI inspector Joe Duffy told the board the NOV followed a tenant complaint and a standard permit-research process. Duffy explained the NOV identified unapproved wiring, unapproved plumbing, lack of smoke detectors, inadequate light and ventilation in a habitable room and lack of a second means of egress — and that the electrical and plumbing permits before the board are the customary, required permits to abate the notice.

Neighbors and a local witness urged caution. Pat Buskovich, a nearby resident, and others asked the board to obtain the assessor’s confidential file from 1930 and clearer copies of early water-department records before authorizing actions that could remove a residential unit during an ongoing housing shortage.

The board divided. Commissioners who voted to uphold the permits emphasized that the plumbing and electrical permits were adjuncts to a building permit and a notice of violation that DBI staff had already issued based on their research; they expressed concern about displacing tenants but also about leaving life-safety hazards unaddressed. Commissioners voting against the permits cited the inconclusive historical record and expressed a desire for DBI to produce clearer documentary proof or for the property owner to produce the assessor’s report before the board finalizes action.

DBI said it would continue to enforce abatement steps and that plumbing inspections will verify that any required gas capping is properly taken back to the service source during field inspection.

Outcome: The board’s 3–2 vote upholds the electrical and plumbing permits as code compliant and allows the owner to proceed with work to abate the NOV; DBI and appellants were encouraged to exchange documentary proofs and, where necessary, to seek clarifications from the assessor and water department.

What’s next: DBI inspectors will continue field inspections tied to NOV abatement steps; appellants signaled they may pursue further administrative or legal review if documentary questions remain.