Board of Appeals upholds notice of violation for unauthorized unit at 354 Head Street

Vice President Jose Lopez and three board colleagues on Aug. 16 upheld a Planning Department notice of violation issued to the owner of 354 Head Street, rejecting an appeal that sought more time and a stay of penalties while the owner pursues removal or legalization of an unauthorized ground-floor unit.

Appellant counsel Andrew Cattarol told the board the owner, Chuhang Hsieh, cannot afford required work and has taken steps to remove the property from the rental market under the Ellis Act. He said legalizing the unit would cost the owner "approximately $305,000" and that she has suffered serious health and economic setbacks.

Tina Tam, deputy zoning administrator for the Planning Department, countered that the department had issued a corrective permit in 2016 and that the notice of violation was the fourth enforcement action after multiple opportunities to address the violations. Tam told the board the property remains in violation because the corrective permit has not been completed and that administrative penalties could be assessed if the NOV becomes final.

Department of Building Inspection representative Matthew Green added that building permits issued to legalize the unit had not progressed to inspections and that DBI has separate safety-related enforcement (plumbing, electrical) to ensure occupiable housing meets minimum standards.

Commissioners pressed counsel and city staff for specifics about the notice timeline and whether conditional use authorization was required to remove an unauthorized unit. Counsel argued the Ellis Act limits the city’s ability to compel a landlord to remain in the rental business; planning staff and several commissioners said the city’s enforcement interest addresses unpermitted construction and habitability, not the owner’s decision about renting.

After deliberation, the board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the notice of violation, finding the zoning administrator had not erred or abused her discretion. The board also noted the owner’s hardship when discussing penalties, but concluded the long record of unpermitted work required the city’s enforcement action to protect safety and code compliance.

The decision means the NOV remains in place; the board recorded the finding that the appeal was denied. The owner may pursue the city’s post-decision remedies available under municipal rules.