Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deck 1117 Geary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Geary Boulevard roof-deck appeal continued 30 days amid safety and procedure questions
Summary
A disputed historic roof-deck case at 1117 Geary Boulevard was continued for 30 days after the board reviewed archived documents and a tape of a prior director’s hearing and found procedural ambiguity about whether an order of abatement had been issued. The board ordered staff inspections and prohibited use of the deck during the continuance.
The Abatement Appeals Board on Sept. 21 continued an appeal concerning a roof deck at 1117 Geary Boulevard for 30 days, ordering staff inspections, review of hearing tapes and a temporary prohibition on use of the roof deck while the facts and jurisdictional questions are resolved.
The appellant, represented by Alan Woffsey of Emmerich Goodman Associates, presented archival reports and a structural engineer’s report and said the roof deck — characterized by appellant as a long-standing "drying platform" and historically documented by redevelopment‑era reports — has existed for decades.
Department staff said a March notice of abatement was issued after work without permits left the deck occupied, with no issued permit to legalize the current deck materials and no final inspection. Inspectors raised concerns about guardrails and exiting. Complicating the matter, commissioners and counsel debated whether a director’s hearing had produced an order of abatement: the board listened to tape excerpts of a prior director’s hearing and heard differing recollections about whether the hearing result was returned to staff or resulted in a formal order.
Because of the procedural uncertainty and the safety questions, the board voted unanimously to take a 30‑day continuance, have staff inspect the deck and check whether the deck is part of an exiting path, obtain copies of the director‑hearing tape/transcript for review, and direct that the roof deck not be used during the continuance.
The continuance leaves unresolved whether the director’s earlier proceeding produced a formal order of abatement; staff indicated that if the order was properly issued then appeals could continue, but if not the department must remedy procedural defects first.
