Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds abatement for 227840 Second Ave.; grants 30 days for owner to show compliance
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously upheld the order of abatement for 227840 Second Avenue (owner Maxine Fossen) and set a 30‑day compliance period; staff cited long‑standing exterior and interior violations and said city crews had removed a hazardous tree at city expense.
On Nov. 20, 2013, the San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously to uphold an order of abatement for 227840 Second Avenue, property of record Maxine Fossen, and to require the owner to correct violations within 30 days or face possible action by the city attorney.
Rosemary (department staff) reported that the case dates to an exterior notice of violation from February 2010, and that an emergency Department of Public Works (DPW) removal of a tree occurred after staff found an imminent hazard. Staff said municipal efforts to date amount to roughly $2,000 in departmental time and that the case had been referred to the city attorney. Photographs in the staff packet showed interior problems including mold and weatherproofing failures, and staff urged a concrete action plan for timely repairs.
Scott Friedman, representing the appellant, said he has been assisting the owner pro bono since April and described financial and practical impediments to completing repairs. Friedman said he has offered to facilitate inspections and help the owner apply for assistance programs but that some programs (including Rebuilding Together and the Mayor’s Office of Housing) may not cover all repairs or may require eligibility steps that the owner had not yet completed.
Commissioners discussed whether the existing order (which staff said originally gave the owner seven days to complete all work) should be extended; some commissioners proposed short cleanup windows for debris removal while others warned that too-short deadlines could trigger civil penalties since the matter is now in the city attorney’s portfolio. City attorney and staff advised that a recorded order gives clarity to the court and to potential lenders and that permit timetables typically allow longer completion periods.
After debate the board voted to uphold the order of abatement and allow 30 days for compliance; commissioners asked staff to facilitate reinspections and coordinate referrals to assistance programs and to notify the city attorney of compliance progress.
Next steps: Staff will record the order, attempt to schedule reinspection and coordinate referrals to assistance resources; the city attorney may take further action if the owner fails to make required progress.
