Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Abatement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Abatement Appeals Board upholds order for 261 Amber Drive; owner assessed monitoring and abatement costs

Abatement Appeals Board (San Francisco City) · December 19, 2018
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 unanimously upheld an order of abatement for 261 Amber Drive after hearing competing testimony about long-running permit delays and insecure coverings; the board assessed monitoring and abatement costs (monthly monitoring $48; total fees described as "a little bit more than a thousand dollars").

The Abatement Appeals Board on Dec. 19, 2018, unanimously upheld an order of abatement for the vacant property at 261 Amber Drive and ordered the owner to pay monitoring and abatement costs, the board said.

Building Department staff recommended upholding the order, saying the owner had registered the property but had not provided adequate, secure weatherproofing and that the department had documented prior violations going back to 2016. "The staff recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and assess all costs," a Building Department representative told the board, noting monthly monitoring fees of $48 and total charges of "a little bit more than a thousand dollars" to date.

The property owner, represented at the hearing by an architect, Eric Chan, told commissioners the work began in 2016 and that the owners spent roughly 2½ years working through planning and historic-review processes. Chan said the house is an Eichler-style structure with historic protections and that the owners recently obtained an over-the-counter building permit. "We got approval for an over the counter building process permit," Chan said, and said a full building permit was expected within about a week and that repairs should take about two months.

Appellant testimony and department records showed the house had been registered as vacant in February 2017 and February 2018 and that assessment and monitoring fees had been paid, including a recent payment this month. Department staff said a 2016 case was referred to the City Attorney because work began without a permit.

Commissioners repeatedly cited photographs and departmental inspections showing unsecured openings and flapping paper coverings rather than the more secure temporary materials the ordinance permits. Commissioners said the historical status of the house made preservation important but did not excuse inadequate weatherproofing or exposure of the building to the elements. One commissioner urged the owners to work with inspectors to confirm acceptable temporary coverings while permit work proceeds.

A motion to uphold the order of abatement and assess costs was made and seconded and then approved on a roll call vote with all members voting yes. The board recorded affirmative votes from President Warshall, Vice President Lee, Commissioner Clinch, Commissioner Constance, Commissioner McCarthy, Commissioner Moss and Commissioner Walker.

Earlier in the meeting the board also approved minutes from its Sept. 19 and Oct. 17, 2018 meetings by voice vote. With no general public comment, the board adjourned at 9:22 a.m. and planned a roughly 10-minute recess before reconvening as the Building Inspection Commission.

The board’s action is an administrative enforcement of the local vacant-building ordinance; the City Attorney's Office is handling related permit-violation matters from 2016, the department said. The owners are expected to coordinate with inspectors to secure the site as renovations proceed.