Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement board upholds Pierce Street order but holds it in abeyance; board also grants continuances for Burry Blvd. and Fillmore cases
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board voted to uphold an abatement for a rear structure at Pierce Street while holding the order in abeyance for five months with conditions (engineer report, shoring, temporary permit). The board also granted 90‑day continuances for continued appeals at 1117 Burry Blvd. and 554 Fillmore St.
On Jan. 18 the San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board took three procedural and enforcement actions: it granted continuances for two previously continued appeals and upheld an order of abatement for a dilapidated structure on Pierce Street while placing the order in abeyance under conditions intended to protect neighboring residents.
For the continued matters, the board voted unanimously to continue the appeal for 1117 Burry Boulevard for 90 days after attorney Andrew Zacks said the property’s permit had cleared historic preservation and planning and was in DBI’s structural plan check. The board made a separate unanimous continuance for 554 Fillmore Street after acting senior building inspector John Hinchen told the board a permit application had been filed (Nov. 18) and staff recommended treating the item consistently with the other continued case.
On the Pierce Street matter (Case 6755336), Rosemary Boskey, chief housing inspector for DBI, described a collapsed front portion of a rear structure behind an occupied eight‑unit building and told the board there was no building‑permit application as of that morning. Boskey said the condition restricted tenants’ access and created a blighted and potentially unsafe condition. Staff recommended upholding the director’s order of abatement and imposing costs.
Bob Nelke, representing the Levinson family (property owners), told the board the owners had prepared plans, were ready to submit a permit application, and were seeking financing; he said bids had been obtained (one cited at $220,000) and asked that the board hold the order in abeyance to avoid creating a title cloud that would impede financing. Nelke said the owners had capped utilities and intended to pursue planning review.
Board members discussed interim safety measures and compliance milestones. The board voted unanimously to uphold the order of abatement but to hold it in abeyance for five months provided the owner complied with staff directions: obtain a shoring/repair permit, file structural engineering documentation within 10 days, and secure a showing/temporary permit to make the building safe within 30 days. The board’s direction also included filing the property as an abandoned building (administrative tracking) and periodic staff verification of compliance.
The board closed the meeting after a public comment period that included support for securing the building from a neighborhood group representative, and announced adjournment.
