Board of Appeals reduces DBI fine for unpermitted work at 39 Raymond Avenue to five times value of work

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted on Oct. 28, 2015 to grant an appeal of a Department of Building Inspection penalty for unpermitted work at 39 Raymond Avenue and reduce the penalty from nine times to five times the value of the work. The reduction followed testimony from the property owner’s son that he pulled the permit on his parents’ behalf and that the family had limited English proficiency and financial resources.

Inspector Joe Duffy of the Department of Building Inspection told the board that Housing Inspection Services investigated a complaint in March–April 2015 and issued a notice of violation on April 29 describing an unauthorized dwelling created in a garage area and multiple code violations. The initial valuation of the unpermitted work was $15,000; notes show that figure was later reduced to $5,000. Duffy said the department’s standard penalty is nine times the value of the work and that the assessed penalty after reductions totaled $1,004.13. He also confirmed that anonymous complaints typically trigger a site visit.

Appellants, represented at the hearing through an interpreter, described leaking windows, a tenant/landlord dispute, and limited English ability. One family member said they had begun repairs and that the family was low‑income. Their son, Ken Wang, told the board he prepared drawings and filed the permit because his parents could not afford an architect.

Commissioner Frank Fung moved to grant the appeal and reduce the multiplier to five times the value of the work on the basis that the unpermitted work was performed by a prior owner rather than the current owner. DBI staff clarified that the multiplier applies to the value of the work performed (not the permit fee) and that reducing the multiplier would reduce the assessed penalty (Duffy and a commissioner noted the assessed amount would drop from roughly $1,000 to approximately $600). The board voted in favor of the motion and the reduction carried.

DBI staff advised the family to complete required abatement and final inspections to avoid further costs; Duffy warned that unaddressed notices of violation can lead to additional assessment costs. The board’s action adjusted the civil penalty amount but did not change the notice of violation or the requirement to bring the property into compliance.

The board recorded no further follow-up schedule at the hearing; the party that filed the permit and the property owners retain standard administrative and enforcement options.