Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seismic Retrofit Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board returns Powell Street retrofit case to staff for one-year monitoring
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously to return an appeal of an order of abatement for 1466 Powell Street to Department of Building Inspection staff for monitoring for one year, after hearing that seismic retrofit work is nearly complete but final sign-off is withheld by Public Works over a sidewalk encroachment by a tenant.
The Abatement Appeals Board on March 19 returned an appeal of an October 17, 2024 order of abatement for 1466 Powell Street to Department of Building Inspection (DBI) staff for monitoring for one year.
DBI code enforcement presented the case (complaint 202301642) and said the property remains in violation of the San Francisco Existing Building Code (SFEBC) section 505(e) because the owner has not obtained a certificate of final completion. "The property remains in violation," DBI representative Mauricio Hernandez said, noting the file was referred to a director's hearing and an order of abatement was issued on Oct. 17, 2024.
Appellant Jason Hsu, who represented property owner Chaoflon Hsu, told the board the seismic retrofit has been completed and DBI had inspected the work. "The building has effectively been seismically retrofitted," Hsu said, and asserted the outstanding final sign-off is being withheld by the Department of Public Works because a tenant installed double-glazed doors that encroach on the city sidewalk. Hsu said the owner has obtained permits, hired a contractor and has filed a lawsuit against the tenant to permit corrective work; the tenant trial is set for October.
DBI staff told the board the permit is active but that full compliance requires the certificate of final completion. Hernandez said DBI is "content with the progress of the work" but must enforce the ordinance and obtain final sign-off to close the case. Staff recommended upholding the order of abatement and imposing the assessed costs.
During deliberation commissioners noted the absence of an immediate life-safety hazard and the owner’s progress toward compliance. Commissioner Williams moved to return the case to staff for monitoring for one year so DBI can continue oversight and conduct another walkthrough as needed; Vice President Newman seconded. The motion carried unanimously on a roll-call vote (Newman, Alexander Toot, Ming, Williams: yes).
The board’s action does not vacate the order of abatement; instead the case will be monitored by staff and returned to the Abatement Appeals Board in one year to report status. The appellant indicated a one-year monitoring period was acceptable.
Next steps: DBI will monitor the permit progress, coordinate any needed inspections or walk-throughs with the owner, and report back to the Abatement Appeals Board in approximately 12 months.
