What happened in this inspection
Cal/OSHA opened a unprogrammed related inspection of Jose S. Chingcuangco at 1020 Innes Ave, San Francisco (San Francisco County) on Aug 29, 2003. It was a partial inspection focused on safety hazards. The record lists 3 employees, a figure the employer reports to the inspector and one that can cover more than the site inspected. Inspectors issued 11 citations (0 serious) and proposed $20,610 in penalties; after appeal or settlement the current total is $810. 11 citations were contested before the Appeals Board. 1 citation was deleted on appeal and is not counted. The case closed on Oct 11, 2006.
Citations
Each citation names the rule, its classification and the penalty as proposed and as it stands now.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $125, current $125. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Feb 23, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $185, current $185. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Mar 22, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $125, current $0. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Mar 22, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $125, current $0. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Mar 22, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $125, current $0. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Mar 22, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $125, current $125. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Mar 22, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $2,250, current $125. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Feb 28, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $2,250, current $0. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Feb 28, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $2,250, current $0. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Feb 28, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $10,800, current $250. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Feb 28, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $2,250, current $0. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Feb 28, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Feb 18, 2004. Proposed $5,000, current $0. 2 workers exposed. Contested Mar 12, 2004, final order Sep 11, 2006. Abatement due Feb 23, 2004, completed. Read the rule.
Your rights
If you worked at this site, the inspection file is a public record once the case closes; request it from the Cal/OSHA district office with activity number 300893708. A worker who reported the hazard, the injury or the inspection and was then fired, demoted or cut has a retaliation claim under Labor Code 6310, one year to file with the Labor Commissioner and longer to sue. Injuries themselves go through workers' compensation. Free, confidential review: (800) 371-3088.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, inspection 300893708, checked Nov 4, 2026. How to read a record. Back to the safety tracker.
About this data: Records come from the U.S. Department of Labor's OSHA enforcement datasets (inspection, violation, accident and accident injury tables), which carry Cal/OSHA's state-plan inspections alongside federal ones. We load every inspection of a California worksite opened since January 1, 2000 and refresh it weekly. Employer names, addresses and industry codes are as the inspecting office recorded them; similar names are grouped where they clearly refer to the same employer. A citation can be reduced, vacated or withdrawn on appeal, and an inspection can stay open for months, so a record can change. Penalties shown as "current" reflect the latest status in the federal file. This page is public information about the employer's regulatory record, not legal advice and not a statement that any person was harmed or any law broken beyond what the record states.