Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds DBI permit to comply with notice of violation after neighbors raised party‑wall and safety concerns

San Francisco Board of Appeals · July 21, 2010
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

Neighbors appealed a DBI permit issued to comply with a notice of violation at 311 California Street, arguing repairs and encroachments between attached Victorian rowhouses required plans and surveys. After testimony from the appellant, the property owner and DBI, the Board upheld the permit but asked DBI to ensure the NOV corrections are enforced and to review the appellant’s itemized repair list.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 21 upheld a Department of Building Inspection (DBI) permit issued to comply with a notice of violation at 311 California Street and directed DBI to ensure the work addresses the dilapidated conditions listed in the NOV.

Appellants Paul Wormer and counsel argued that work at the neighboring property had created structural and rotting conditions, attachments and plumbing intrusions that required plans and a survey before DBI issued a permit. "We cannot fix these problems without seeing what is happening on the neighbor’s side," Wormer said, citing rotted members and a shed attached to his building.

DBI and the permit holder’s counsel said the district inspector’s NOV listed the corrective actions required and that the inspector judged plans were not necessary for those specific NOV corrections; DBI’s senior inspector reviewed the file and authorized permit processing. Lawrence Kornfield (DBI) told the Board the buildings are the product of historical subdivision and that exact property‑line evidence is not always recorded, making private survey or civil litigation the usual route if ownership boundaries are disputed.

Commissioners reviewed an itemized task list the appellant provided and debated whether the list required formal plan submission or could be enforced through the NOV process and district inspections. The Board decided to uphold DBI’s permit to comply with the NOV and asked DBI to review the appellant’s list and proceed with inspections and enforcement where the district inspector deems corrective work necessary. The roll call was unanimous (5‑0) to uphold the permit.