Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Vacant Buildings Blight topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds abatement and assessments for fire-damaged Third Street building

Abatement Appeals Board, San Francisco City · March 20, 2019
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Abatement Appeals Board upheld an order of abatement and imposed assessment costs for the fire-damaged property on Third Street after DBI described long-standing violations and neighbors urged demolition; the vote was unanimous.

The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously upheld an order of abatement and imposed assessment costs for the fire-damaged property on Third Street (case number recorded as 68585122) at its March 20 meeting.

Maurizio Hernandez, Chief Building Inspector for Code Enforcement, told the board that a complaint was filed in February 2014 related to permit 201301047304 for fire-damage repair and that the owner failed to obtain required inspections. Hernandez said the owner had opportunities to comply, that a demolition/site permit was approved on 03/13/2018 but not picked up, and that staff recommended upholding the abatement and imposing assessment costs.

Owner Chen Zhu said the property was purchased already fire damaged and that the project to repair or rebuild proved financially difficult. Zhu said the owner plans to demolish and rebuild but estimated it could take three to four months to obtain bids and resolve potential hazardous-material issues, asking the board for more time.

Neighbor Kat Anderson described the building as a persistent blight, saying it is "a hulk of a building" and that she believes demolition is overdue to protect nearby merchants and reduce crime and graffiti. The board discussed the property's long compliance history and moved to impose the abatement and assessments. Commissioner Walker moved to uphold the order of abatement; the motion passed unanimously.

The order remains in effect and the owner is responsible for abatement and assessment costs. The board emphasized property maintenance obligations remain even if the owner later demolishes and rebuilds.