Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board upholds abatement for 1943 Ocean Avenue after owner fails to appear
Summary
On Oct. 16, 2024 the San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board unanimously upheld an order of abatement and assessment of costs for 1943 Ocean Avenue after the listed appellants did not appear; DBI cited a 2015 fire, multiple incomplete permits and outstanding NOVs.
The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously upheld an order of abatement and assessment of costs for 1943 Ocean Avenue on Oct. 16, 2024 after the listed appellants did not appear at the hearing.
Joe Ng, senior building inspector with the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), told the board the case traces to a 2015 fire that damaged the building and led DBI to issue notices of violation. "Today, after almost 10 years from the first NOV issue, the building repair work still has not been legally and fully completed by DBI final inspection sign off," Ng said, summarizing DBI's recommendation that the board uphold the order and assess costs.
Ng cited permit activity tied to the property (permits with last four digits 3080 and 3662 were not completed to final inspection, and other permits with last four digits 9293 and 5536 were suspended in November 2018) and referred the board to exhibits in the case file, including NOV #201626632 (issued August 2016). The department presented certified-mail receipts and a posting photo as evidence that notice of the hearing was provided.
Vice President Newman moved to uphold the order of abatement and assessment of costs; Commissioner Shattucks seconded. A roll-call vote recorded unanimous "yes" votes from Vice President Newman, Commissioner Alexander Toot, Commissioner Ming, Commissioner Shattucks and Commissioner Williams. The board then moved and voted to confirm that notice had been properly provided under the appeals rules and that, because the appellant failed to appear, the order of abatement is immediately effective from its issuance date.
The record lists the appellant as Jeffrey and Sophie Lau. The hearing file and DBI exhibits contain the detailed permit and NOV history; board members relied on those exhibits in reaching their decision. The transcript records a reference to an earlier "July" order of abatement (the transcript phrase appears garbled as "July 1236"); the exact day was not clear in the record and is not specified in board minutes provided during the hearing.
The board took no additional action on remediation scheduling at the hearing; DBI staff said officials want the repairs completed and that nothing in today's action prevents the property owner or a representative from doing the work. The decision will be reflected in the appeals board's written order and DBI's enforcement file.
