Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement order for Sixth Street commercial property becomes effective after appellant fails to appear
Summary
An abatement order for a Sixth Street site (case 695128) became effective Aug. 20 after the appellant did not appear; DBI staff reported unpermitted rooftop awning and other tenant-improvement permits outstanding.
The Abatement Appeals Board on Aug. 20 made an abatement order effective for a commercial property on Sixth Street (case number 695128, complaint 202426041) after the appellant failed to appear at the hearing and notice was shown to have been mailed and posted.
Maurizio Hernandez, chief building inspector for code enforcement, told the board the complaint alleged unpermitted construction activities at 2028 Sixth Street related to conversion of a former café to a market and snack shop. Inspections found a corrugated metal awning and an expanded rooftop structure installed without required building permits or planning approval. Hernandez said tenant improvement permit applications (202407227020 and 20240735773) had been filed but were not issued at the time of inspection.
A notice of hearing was posted to the property on July 14, 2025, and mailed to the property owner and appellant on July 10, 2025; a courtesy email was sent on July 29, 2025, according to the record. Board staff cited the Abatement Appeals Board rules of procedure and San Francisco Building Code section 105A.2.8.1: if notice was duly given and the appellant does not appear, the order of abatement is immediately effective from the date the order was issued.
Because staff confirmed notice was provided and the appellant was not present, the board did not take additional action and the order stands as effective under the code. DBI staff recommended the appellant legalize the rooftop awning, obtain planning approval, obtain the tenant-improvement permits and call for inspections within 15 days, and pass all required final inspections to abate the violation.
The record shows the appellant (identified in filings as Joseph Ben Veniste or a design professional working for the tenant) did not request an extension or contact the department prior to the hearing; DBI staff said they had not received any recent extension requests.
