Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds DBI penalty for illegal units at 929 Pacific Avenue

San Francisco Board of Appeals · May 2, 2007
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals upheld the Department of Building Inspection’s finding that 929 Pacific Avenue contained illegal basement units with substandard conditions and sustained a nine‑times penalty, voting 5–0 to support the department.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals upheld the Department of Building Inspection’s penalty assessment against the owner of 929 Pacific Avenue, finding evidence supported the department’s notice of violation for illegal basement units and related safety deficiencies.

Lawrence Kornfield, chief building inspector, told the board investigators found the basement had been partitioned into two separate apartments with private entrances and full kitchens and baths without required egress, smoke detectors or approved fireproofing, describing the conditions as “very substandard housing conditions.” The department’s investigation cited a contract addendum that suggested the appellant had arranged the partitions with the seller.

Owner Kenny Sengh told the board he purchased the building with the partitions already in place and said repeatedly, “I didn’t know,” when commissioners asked whether he had been aware of the alterations at the time of sale. Commissioners pressed him about his sales agreement and documentation that acknowledged the partitioning.

After discussion the Board, on a motion to uphold the department’s penalty proposed by Commissioner Albright, voted 5–0 to sustain the nine‑times penalty. Commissioners said repeated examples in the record and the appellant’s acknowledgements in transactional documents undermined a claim of complete ignorance.

What happens next: The department’s penalty stands as upheld by the board; the owner may pursue administrative or legal remedies outside the board if available.