Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abatement Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board holds multiple orders in abeyance for permitting, upholds fees
Summary
At its Jan. 21 meeting the Abatement Appeals Board unanimously approved continuances or 60‑day holds for several abatement cases (including 921 Central Ave and 1254 Mission Street), directed inspections on at least one case, and denied a rehearing. The board also upheld assessment fees where noted.
The Abatement Appeals Board on Jan. 21 took action on several notices of violation, voting unanimously on continuances and holds while directing staff to monitor compliance and inspections.
For case number 6791 (921 Central Avenue), Rosemarie Boski, Chief Housing Inspector, told the board an extensive scope of work had been prepared in coordination with the Mayor’s Office of Housing and that the owner was close to executing a contract. Boski said “the report does indicate that once work commences that it should be done within 15 days.” Appellant Ms. Loeb said she expected the contract would be signed “this week or next week” and that she had notified housemates and would coordinate required neighbor cooperation. Commissioners agreed to uphold the order of abatement but to hold enforcement in abeyance for 60 days, with a staff update requested at the board’s February meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
On two appeals for 1254 Mission Street (case numbers 6797 and 6798), Inspector Hinchen reported plumbing and electrical work installed without permits and recommended upholding the abatement orders and assessing costs. Karen Nam, speaking on behalf of the owner, said planning reviewed approved plans to revert parts of the property to commercial use and to add accessible restrooms, and said she expected occupants to vacate by the end of the month. Commissioners voted to uphold both orders, hold each in abeyance for 60 days to allow permitting and remediation, and to uphold assessment fees. Staff reported the outstanding fees tied to one notice as $1,220 and the other amount noted in the record as $15.48 (as stated in the department report). The board’s actions were unanimous.
The board also considered a rehearing request in a previously decided case (listed in the agenda as a Wood Street matter). An appellant argued the board had erred legally in setting a deadline that was impossible to meet. The board reviewed the standard for rehearing (new evidence or legal error) and found no new facts demonstrating legal error; the motion to deny rehearing carried unanimously.
No general public comment was offered and the meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
