Abatement Appeals Board upholds order for 2345–2347 Clement Street, imposes assessment of costs

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on Nov. 14, 2025, voted unanimously to uphold a Department of Building Inspection order of abatement and to include an assessment of costs for the property at 2345–2347 Clement Street, rejecting the appellant99s request for a 120-day abeyance.

The decision came after code enforcement staff said the department99s records show a failed exterior inspection, limited inspection history for the exterior work and evidence that some work was covered without inspection. 9cAt this time, the department staff recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment costs,9d Mauricio Hernandez, representing code enforcement, told the board.

Appellant representatives countered that the most serious safety items had been addressed, that multiple trade permits had been issued, and that they had submitted an architect99s professional assessment and photographs showing corrective work. David Silverman, agent for CP Clement LLC, asked the board to overturn Order of Abatement No. 202430152-A or, alternatively, grant 120 days to finish work and obtain final inspections: 9cRefer our case back to DBI for finals or please grant us the 120-day abeyance, holidays taken into account,9d he said.

The department99s presentation summarized the case record: a notice of violation dated Oct. 28, 2024, alleging that work at the rear of the building exceeded the scope of an active siding permit and created unsafe conditions, including an unsecured three-story stair and an attached shed. Code enforcement told the board that although some permits had been issued subsequently, staff had not seen final inspections for the exterior work and that a September reinspection had failed.

Silverman said the appellant has obtained multiple permits (including permits referenced in the record ending in 6216 and 6207), provided structural calculations and an architect99s report, and expects final sign-offs by Jan.–Feb. 2026. He explained why some work began before all permits were finalized, saying the removal of old siding revealed hazardous conditions and that the team proceeded to protect tenants and address safety concerns; he acknowledged that proceeding before full permitting was a mistake. 9cWe were concerned about the tenants,9d Silverman said. 9cWe just wanted to get it over with and then go in and ask forgiveness afterwards.9d

Board members questioned both sides about the inspection record, the scope of reported work and the timeline. The department said it had only one exterior inspection record that resulted in a required reinspection and that photos submitted at the appeal raised new questions about the scope of demolition and rebuilding. The appellant said special-inspection reports and additional inspection documentation were forthcoming.

After discussion, Commissioner Alexander Toot moved to uphold the order of abatement and include assessment of costs; Commissioner Ming seconded. The board99s roll-call vote recorded Alexander Toot, Kalamucci, Lee, McLease, Ming and Williams as voting in favor. 9cThe motion carries unanimously,9d the chair announced. The record does not specify the amount of the assessment.

During general public comment later in the meeting, a commenter raised broader enforcement concerns, alleging delays in enforcement, occupied buildings with expired permits or temporary certificates of occupancy, and potential preferential treatment for certain contractors. The commenter urged clearer, more linear handling between district inspectors and code enforcement.

The board adjourned at 10:23 a.m. The record does not show the abatement amount or a further referral; the appellant indicated additional inspection documents and special-inspection reports remain to be filed with DBI.