Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement for 921 Central Ave. held until Nov. 19 as owner pursues housing office assistance
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously extended an abatement held in abeyance for 921 Central Ave. until the board’s Nov. 19 meeting to allow the Mayor’s Office of Housing to progress inspections and potential grant/loan assistance; staff had recommended upholding the abatement absent proof of initiated repairs.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously to extend the abeyance on the order of abatement for 921 Central Avenue until the board’s next meeting on November 19. Commissioner Walker moved to continue the item and asked for documentation of progress at the next hearing.
Rosemary Bosque, the city’s chief housing inspector, told the board an on-site inspection found no initiated work since the last hearing and that the Mayor’s Office of Housing had contacted the owner but the owner had declined assistance; Bosque said, "we do strongly believe that the order from the hearing officer be upheld" absent written proof of remediation.
The property owner said she had met in person with Rosa Hernandez of the Mayor’s Office of Housing, had a time-stamped appointment, and that an inspection was scheduled for the following Tuesday. The owner said she expected grant assistance but also needed a loan for repairs and asked the board to allow more time while those processes proceed.
Board members expressed frustration with the pace of progress but signaled willingness to allow the Mayor’s Office process to move forward. One commissioner noted loans can take longer than grants and asked for a scope-of-work once inspection occurs. The motion to extend the abeyance until Nov. 19 carried on a unanimous roll-call vote: Vice President Melgar, Commissioners McCarthy, Marr, Lee, McCray and Walker voting yes.
The extension is procedural: the board did not vacate the order of abatement. The owner and staff were asked to produce documentation of inspections or other demonstrable progress at the continued date.
The board then moved to the next agenda item.
