Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abatement 901 Balboa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board upholds second abatement order for 901 Balboa; assessment reduced
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board voted 5-1 (one recusal) to uphold the Director's second order of abatement for 901 Balboa Street but directed staff to reduce the assessment to $317.80 and to abate the complaint once a demolition permit is issued or field verification confirms vacancy and safe shoring.
On Dec. 18, 2006, the San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board heard an appeal of a Director's order of abatement for 901 Balboa Street and voted to uphold the second order while ordering a reduced assessment and conditions for abatement.
The Board's acting secretary, Carla Johnson, told commissioners that staff recommended lifting an earlier order that staff later determined was issued in error but upholding the second order that remained in effect. Staff also recommended reducing assessed fees to $317.80 and allowing abatement of the complaint either upon issuance of a residential demolition permit or upon a field inspection verifying that the building is vacated and safely shored.
The appellant's attorney, Steve Williams, argued the department had delayed bringing enforcement to the Board and raised a procedural objection tied to a 40-day hearing expectation. Williams said the owner filed a demolition application within the 30-day advisement window and that planning intake rejected the filing on technical grounds, putting the owner in a catch-22. "It's fundamentally unfair for the, the timelines and the deadlines that the department sets to only run-in 1 direction," Williams said, arguing the department's delay prejudiced the owner.
Staff acknowledged the property is severely damaged and that the timeline was complicated. Carla Johnson said staff and the appellant largely agreed on the property's condition: "We really do concur that it is severely damaged, and it needs some major work to either repair it or to demolish." Staff described the permitting sequence: an emergency shoring permit was followed by further required filings, planning-level neighbor-notification requirements (the planning "03:11" notice) and a site-survey that together delayed a complete intake.
Commissioners asked whether tenants remained on-site (staff said tenants had refused offers to relocate) and whether the building was still shored; staff said the building remained shored and that planning had held the demolition application in intake pending required submittals. Commissioners and counsel discussed whether the Board retained jurisdiction given the delay; the city attorney's advice was that the 40-day timing argument was not necessarily jurisdictional in this instance.
After discussion a motion was made to accept staff recommendations. The Board called the roll: President Walker, Vice President Lee, Commissioner Grubb, Commissioner Romero and Commissioner Theriault voted yes; Commissioner Hurst voted no; Commissioner Murphy was recused. The motion carried with a recorded tally reported as 5 to 1 (one recusal). The Board's action upholds the second order subject to abatement when the demolition permit is issued or upon verification that the building is vacant and safely shored, and directs staff to reduce the assessment to $317.80.
Next steps: staff will abate the complaint when the demolition permit is issued or after field verification that the building is vacated and the shoring is adequate. The record shows the site permit and demolition intake remained pending with Planning at the time of the hearing.
