Board reduces restaurant plumbing penalty after appellant cites notice and corrective action

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted Aug. 17 to grant an appeal from restaurant lessee Sohel Subedar and reduce a plumbing penalty from the full assessed amount to five times the permit fee. Subedar told commissioners he had hired family members to do limited plumbing work, then later hired a licensed plumber and obtained a final inspection after receiving a notice of violation.

The department, represented by Joseph Duffy and citing Chief Plumbing Inspector Steve Penelli, told the board the case involved multiple violations discovered during inspections, two notices of violation and a final warning before the matter went to code enforcement. Duffy said the work included floor drains and sinks installed without required P-traps or vents and gas and water piping installed without permits; he said DBI had expended substantial staff time on the case.

Commissioners debated whether the appellant had constructive or actual notice. Vice President Michael Garcia moved to overturn the department's penalty and reduce it to five times the permit fee based on defective notice and the appellant’s apparent lack of knowledge that a permit was required; he said Subedar had shown sincerity and had taken corrective measures. The roll call showed Commissioner Frank Fung, President Kendall Goh, Commissioner Tanya Peterson, Commissioner Hwang (listed in the hearing transcript) and Vice President Garcia voting aye; the motion passed 5-0.

Subedar told the board he paid contractors to correct the work, spent about $6,000 on repairs and had also paid the penalty and permit fees, and asked for relief so he could reinvest in his small business. The board’s decision reduces the administrative penalty to the five-times-permit-fee level ordered in two other recent appeals heard that evening, reflecting the panel’s consideration of notice and remediation.

The board made no change to DBI’s findings about code violations; its action altered the administrative penalty only. The appellant was granted the reduction on the condition reflected in the board’s motion. The decision is final unless a rehearing is requested under board rules.