Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abatement Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement appeal for 3450 Sacramento Street continued 30 days after appellant fails to appear
Summary
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board continued an order-of-abatement hearing for 3450 Sacramento Street (case 68752455) for 30 days after the appellant did not appear; the board cited permitting issues, past violations and access challenges and voted unanimously to continue.
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on an unanimous vote on a motion to continue agreed to delay action for 30 days on an order of abatement for 3450 Sacramento Street, after the appellant failed to appear at the hearing.
Chief building inspector Mauricio Hernandez presented the department’s case, saying the three-story, five-unit building is currently vacant and that “extensive work at the roof level has taken place without permits,” including what he described as about “20 skylights” and an altered roof line. Hernandez identified the file numbers cited by the department — case 68752455 and complaint 201888993 — and said the department had issued a notice of violation and later an order of abatement after the owner did not comply.
Brad Russi of the City Attorney’s Office told the board that under the building code the failure of an appellant to appear can make an abatement order immediately effective, but the board also retains the discretion to continue the matter. “You could proceed that way if you choose, or you could also continue the matter because this person did apparently request a continuance,” Russi said.
Several commissioners said they were concerned about fairness given the pandemic-era technology barriers some property owners face. Commissioner McCarthy and others noted the owner previously sought a continuance and that planning had accepted a permit application but had not advanced it because revisions were missing. “There are a lot of our stakeholders out there who don’t do things through the email and so on, so I want to be respectful and mindful of that,” McCarthy said.
Commissioner Tam moved to continue the appeal for 30 days to the next Abatement Appeals Board meeting; the motion was seconded and carried by roll call. President Alexander Tuppe, Vice President Tam, Commissioner Clinch and Commissioner McCarthy all voted yes.
Inspector Hernandez told the board the property has a planning notice of enforcement and that the owner had earlier been granted extensions; Hernandez said the owner had contacted the department to request a 90-day extension but did not follow up. The board’s 30-day continuance gives the owner another chance to work with planning and submit required revisions.
The board did not take public comment on the motion, and no appellant was present to offer rebuttal. The board’s action was to continue the hearing rather than immediately put the abatement order into effect; the matter is scheduled to return to the Abatement Appeals Board at its next meeting.
