Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reduces DBI penalty for illegal Clay Street unit to five times the fee
Summary
The Board of Appeals reduced a DBI-imposed penalty against owners at 1415 Clay St. after hearing that the basement unit had been occupied to care for an ailing family member; the board cited mitigating circumstances while noting persistent building-code and egress problems.
Get email alerts on the Building Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 13 voted to reduce the penalty imposed for unpermitted construction at 1415 Clay St., finding mitigating personal circumstances but recognizing DBI’s fire‑safety concerns.
Deputy Director Lawrence Kornfield told the board the penalty stemmed from an illegal basement unit discovered during a routine inspection; the unit had enclosed required egress and included non–fire‑resistive construction. Kornfield said DBI’s inspection history showed six complaints since 2001, some from DBI’s own inspectors.
Richard Ng, appearing as agent for appellants Khamsin Ng and Wei Chi Ng, said the basement had been decommissioned years earlier, described a family health emergency (his mother’s stroke) that led to reoccupation, and acknowledged the family’s failure to recognize that owner‑occupancy still required permits. He said the family is undertaking corrective work and will obtain permits for the egress improvements.
In deliberations commissioners balanced DBI’s safety mandate against the appellants’ personal circumstances. President Frank Fung moved to overturn DBI’s penalty and reduce it to five times the regular fee; the motion carried 4–1. The board’s order instructs the owners to pursue the required permits and complete the safety improvements described during the hearing.
Quotes and sources: Lawrence Kornfield described the discovery and history of complaints; Richard Ng said the family “did not know that occupying it, even owner occupying it was also illegal.” The motion to reduce the penalty passed 4–1.
