Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reduces assessment for Beaumont Avenue case after notice dispute
Summary
In case 675730 (Beaumont Avenue), the Board upheld the violation but reduced the assessment of costs after hearing testimony that the appellant, Baron Fleming, may not have received timely notice of a second Director's hearing. Staff said the work was ultimately completed and indicated willingness to consider reducing the charge.
The Abatement Appeals Board modified the assessment of costs for case 675730 (Beaumont Avenue) after an extended hearing in which staff and the appellant disputed whether the department had provided effective notice of a second Director's hearing.
Rosemarie Gonosky, Chief Housing Inspector, outlined the department's chronology: a notice of violation issued in early 2010, a Director's hearing and a 30-day continuance in November 2010, and a later posting that led to a second Director's hearing and a 7-day order of abatement. Gonosky said the work remained outstanding at the December reinspection, the department posted the building and sent certified mail to the owner on file, and staff recommended upholding the assessment of costs (staff estimated about $800 but said they would be willing to work with the property owner on the amount).
Appellant Baron Fleming said he performed scraping, priming and painting in November 2010 and showed dated photos he said were taken on 11/01/2010; Fleming asserted he did not receive timely certified-mail notices for the second hearing and that he made calls to staff without getting timely callbacks. He told the Board, "I did the work," and asked the Board to excuse or reduce costs given the record on remediation.
Staff rebutted that some work remained at the December reinspection and that green cards in the file indicate certified mail was returned as received at the Oakland mailing address on file. Commissioners pressed staff about the delivery date stamped on the certified-mail return (which appeared to post-date the hearing in one case), and staff acknowledged that the delivery stamping discrepancy required review.
After deliberation Commissioner Walker moved to uphold the violation but substantially reduce the assessment to reflect that the work has since been completed and because notice appeared irregular; the Board voted to modify the assessment (motion carried by roll-call). Staff said they would adjust billing and follow up with the appellant in the case file.
