Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dbi Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Penalty for alleged unpermitted work upheld by operation of law after tied board vote
Summary
An appeal by a property owner over a penalty assessed for work without permits at a Second Avenue property ended in a 2–2 split; with no majority motion to overturn, the Department of Building Inspection's penalty stands by operation of law. The case raised conflicting claims over whether photos in DBI's file depicted the property and whether inspectors had entered the home.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals heard an appeal on Sept. 28 from a property owner seeking refund or reduction of a DBI penalty assessed for work done without a permit at a Second Avenue address. The penalty — based on DBI's calculation of investigatory time and fees — was characterized in testimony as roughly $934.56, reflecting a multiple of the permit fee.
Appellant Chi Pian, who appeared for her mother Alice Tian, said the in-law unit at the property predated their purchase and that photographs in the DBI file were not of her home. "Inspector Duffy never entered the property," she told the board, and she said she had documentation and email exchanges showing some inspectors did not observe the alleged new construction.
Acting DBI representatives described the enforcement timeline: a complaint was received Dec. 14, 2015; an inspector issued a notice of violation on Dec. 18, 2015; a building permit was later filed (201606170288) and signed off Sept. 9, 2016 to legalize the unit. Inspector Donald Duffy and DBI officials said photographs showing framing and drywall were in the code enforcement file and that Chief Building Inspector Patrick O'Reardon had supported the inspector's findings.
Commissioners pressed both sides about whether the photographs in DBI's file were of the property and whether DBI had opportunities earlier to respond to emails disputing the photos. Some commissioners proposed a further on-site inspection by DBI to resolve factual questions.
Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold the penalty as appropriately imposed; the vote was tied 2–2 and the motion failed. With no further motion, the penalty remains upheld by operation of law.
The board did not take further action at the hearing; DBI offered to return for a follow-up inspection if the board requested one.
