Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds abatement and cost assessment for 1742 Yosemite Avenue; architect says 60‑day cure is impractical
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board upheld an order of abatement and the assessment of costs for 1742 Yosemite Avenue after hearing staff describe unpermitted construction and electrical work; the owner's architect argued a 60‑day cure deadline was unrealistic given San Francisco's permitting backlogs.
The Abatement Appeals Board on Jan. 21, 2026, unanimously upheld an order of abatement and the associated assessment of costs for the property at 1742 Yosemite Avenue (Case No. 69651742, Complaint No. 202311787).
Maurice (Mauricio) Hernandez, representing court enforcement, told the board inspection found extensive unpermitted interior construction at the two‑story industrial property, including grow rooms and associated unpermitted electrical work, and that the owner had been given notices and a final warning. Hernandez said enforcement referred the matter to court enforcement and recommended upholding the abatement and assessment of costs, including 12 months of monitoring and enforcement fees.
"At this time, we believe that court enforcement have provided ample time to at least file some type of application," Hernandez said, noting the enforcement files contained no planning application or variance and citing prior complaints and a 05/10/2024 notice of violation and a 01/30/2025 final warning.
Michael Hanna, an architect representing the owner (identified in the record as the Andrew Govan Smith revocable trust), told the board the owner did not intend cannabis use, removed the tenant and equipment when he learned of the activity, and that the owner lacks the resources and time to meet a 60‑day deadline to obtain permits and complete required work. "60 days is unheard of," Hanna said, describing lengthy plan‑check cycles and multi‑department reviews that routinely take months.
Board members questioned whether the record showed any planning applications or concrete steps demonstrating progress; commissioners emphasized the board's limited authority when buildings present public‑health or safety hazards. One commissioner cited the board's code authority and said the finding of unsafe condition constrains the ability to grant relief.
After deliberation a motion to uphold the order of abatement and assessment of costs was made, seconded and carried on a unanimous roll call vote. The board recorded no public comment on the item during the hearing.
The board's action leaves enforcement and the assessment of costs in place; department staff said they would proceed under the San Francisco building code and enforcement process.
