Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Order Of Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board halves fee and holds abatement in abeyance for Golden Gate Avenue property
Summary
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board upheld an order of abatement for 183 Golden Gate Ave., agreed to hold enforcement in abeyance for three months and reduced the assessed fee by 50%, citing ongoing remediation work and prior fees paid.
The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on April 16, 2014, upheld an order of abatement for 183 Golden Gate Avenue but held enforcement in abeyance for three months and cut the assessed fee in half.
John Hinton, representing the Department of Building Inspection, told the board the violation involved tenant‑improvement work on the ground floor done without a permit and recommended upholding the abatement and assessment of costs. Hinton noted a permit had been issued in March but later expired and that the director’s file showed prior penalties had been paid.
Appellant representatives said the prior nonprofit tenant lost federal funding and left the project unfinished. Henry Kanelowitz, who appeared for the appellant, said a new permit was in process and estimated it would take “probably about 2 or 3 months” to complete work and inspections. Property manager Jeff Lance told commissioners the space had been gutted and that the owners planned substantial upgrades, saying the owners were “put into an awkward position” by the lapse in tenant funding and that they intended to invest in repairs.
Commissioner Walker proposed a compromise motion to uphold the order, hold the abatement in abeyance for three months, and reduce the fee by 50%. Staff acknowledged there had been prior fees and inspections on the file and did not object to allowing time for the property owners to proceed toward resolving the violation. The board voted by roll call and approved the motion unanimously.
The action preserves the director’s order of abatement on the property record while giving the owners time to secure permits and complete corrective work; the reduced assessment relieves part of the immediate financial burden. The department said that once a renewed permit is issued and the work is signed off, the case can be closed and any remaining administrative fees applied in the ordinary course.
The board did not set a formal extension of the 30‑day permit requirement in the order; commissioners stressed the owners should begin engaging professionals and inspectors immediately so the work can proceed during the three‑month abeyance period.
