AAB upholds abatement order for 102 Baker Street after hearing on paint, roof debris and safety

The Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously on March 20 to uphold the director's order of abatement for 102 Baker Street (complaint tracking number 202290668).

DBI senior housing inspector Jim Laurie presented photos and inspection findings, saying a Notice of Violation was issued May 5, 2022, and a most recent inspection occurred March 7, 2024. Laurie described peeling paint on exterior shingles and facial trim, missing corbels on the cornice molding, loose roofing materials and debris that staff said could migrate to neighboring properties. DBI recommended upholding the order of abatement and assessing associated costs.

Owner and appellant Christopher Neto and his family told the board that construction was delayed by contractor litigation and outstanding mechanic's liens (Mr. Neto stated two liens totaling $204,000), which prevented financing and restarted work. Neto submitted supplemental declarations from his architect and project manager and asked the board to hold the director's order in abeyance while the family secures financing and restarts construction. Neto and his son also reported ongoing vandalism and a hate-speech graffiti incident that the family said is under investigation by the San Francisco Police Department and the district attorney's office.

Several neighbors testified to safety and quality-of-life impacts. Kimo Bailey (104 Baker) said tenants felt unsafe walking past the site and that nearby property values had been affected. Lynn Stone described roof particulates creating a health risk for a neighbor with chronic pain who must clean gutters. Other neighbors reported noise, sand migration and standing water drawing mosquitoes.

During deliberations commissioners asked whether alternatives to full repainting—such as scaffolding, netting, tarping, containment work-site measures or lead testing—would adequately address public-health risks. DBI staff said the San Francisco building code presumes buildings built before 1979 have lead-based paint unless tested and that containment (scaffolding and netting) plus addressing roof debris could lead to an agreeable remediation approach; testing would "allay our fears," staff said.

Appellants argued the department failed to provide an assessment of costs at least seven days before the hearing as required by the board's rules; DBI said no assessment of cost had yet been generated because action on the order was suspended during the appeal, so there was nothing to produce. The board first voted to accept untimely supplemental documents from the appellant so they could be considered. The board then voted to overrule the appellant's objection related to the assessment. On the final motion to uphold the director's order of abatement, the board recorded unanimous "Yes" votes and the motion carried.

The board's action upholds the order requiring remediation measures (painting and addressing roof and debris issues); DBI indicated assessments of cost are assessed when an order is recorded with the assessor, and in this case staff said no assessment record had yet been generated to present.