Abatement Appeals Board upholds order of abatement for 1600 Clement Street, imposes $1,497.80 assessment

The Abatement Appeals Board on a unanimous vote on the Clement Street appeal denied the owner’s request to reverse an order of abatement for 1600 Clement Street and imposed the related assessment of costs, $1,497.80. The decision followed testimony from housing inspectors, multiple tenants and advocates, and statements from the property owner and DBI staff about permits and plan-check status.

Housing Chief (department) framed the case as a habitability issue affecting multiple tenants at the building and called the owner a repeat violator of the housing code. Housing inspector Liam McCarthy testified he had visited the building “over a dozen” times and described photos showing a damaged shower pan, a broken wall near an electrical outlet and a bathroom floor that had been removed. Tenant Bill Williams testified that his unit has been without a working shower for more than five months and that temporary repairs left the neighboring unit’s ceiling collapsed, making alternate access unsafe. “We strongly oppose the appellant’s request to reverse the order of abatement,” attorney Jamie Uziel said on behalf of tenants, citing Civil Code Section 1941.1 and calling the conditions “egregious and unacceptable.”

Owner Sophie Lau told the board that COVID-related delays, contractor availability and an alleged clerical error at DBI impeded timely completion, and said some plumbing work had passed rough inspection. “We want to take care of all the problems,” Lau said in rebuttal, asking for leniency on fines and assessments. DBI staff and an acting chief building inspector said a building-permit file was in process and urged expedited plan check and permit issuance so repairs could proceed; DBI staff indicated permits would be issued once drawings met code.

Commissioners questioned whether the hearing presented new evidence to alter prior decisions, examined whether alternate unit access had been offered and whether structural damage required additional inspection. After deliberation and clarification of the motion language, the board voted to deny the appeal, uphold the order of abatement and impose the assessment of costs. Commissioners requested follow-up reporting on plan check/permit issuance and emphasized the need to expedite repairs to restore habitability.