Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board gives owners 60 days to secure permits before abatements take effect for 16 units at 855 Folsom
Summary
After extended debate over whether low-headroom mezzanine spaces at 855 Folsom are habitable and whether the developer or owners should bear responsibility, the Abatement Appeals Board upheld hearing officers’ findings but suspended abatement enforcement for 60 days so owners may obtain issued permits and complete plan-check requirements.
The Abatement Appeals Board on Nov. 19 upheld orders of abatement for alterations to mezzanine areas in 15 apartment units at 855 Folsom Street but suspended enforcement for 60 days to allow owners to obtain issued building permits and resolve plan-check comments.
DBI Chief Building Inspector Dan Lowry said 16 notices of violation were grouped for appeal after inspections found alterations made without required building permits at mezzanines serving ninth-floor units. "The 16 notices of violation that have been grouped together . . . were issued over a year ago on 08/13/2007 for work performed without required building permits," Lowry told commissioners while summarizing staff findings. Lowry said most of the altered spaces had headroom below code minimums and that 15 units had director's orders of abatement issued August 19, 2008; unit 924 had been granted a 60‑day continuance by the director and did not yet have an order of abatement.
Appellants' counsel said owners had filed 16 building-permit applications on Oct. 24, 2008 and are pursuing plan-check approvals. Counsel argued many buyers purchased their units with the altered spaces already open and asked the board to suspend abatements and consider waiving additional penalties for owners facing mortgage consequences. "We are asking the board . . . to reverse the notices of violation and, in particular, to reverse the orders of abatement, at least pending what we hope to be final resolution in working with PlanCheck," counsel said.
Commissioners spent lengthy time weighing technical code interpretation against equity concerns. DBI and plan-review staff said a key unresolved issue is how to count floor area when portions of mezzanine space are below 7 feet of clear headroom; under the 2007 California Building Code some mezzanines may be calculated differently if sprinklers and an approved voice-alarm system are provided. Commissioners also raised life‑safety questions about dead-end configurations and access to the altered spaces.
After debate the board approved a motion to uphold the hearing officers’ recommendations but to suspend entering orders of abatement for 60 days, provided that the owners obtain issued permits (not merely filed applications) within that period. Commissioners asked for a 30‑day status update at the board’s next meeting and directed DBI staff to work with applicants to expedite plan check and identify any life‑safety corrections needed before final sign‑off.
The board did not rescind the notices of violation. Its action preserves DBI’s right to recover costs and left open staff authority to propose proportional assessment of enforcement costs; commissioners also discussed options such as subordinations if an imposed order would create a cloud on title. If permits are not issued and picked up within 60 days the board directed that abatements may be imposed at that time.
The decision balances a recognition by several commissioners of owner hardship with a determination that the violations—work performed without required permits—warrant sanctions and code‑compliance measures unless plan check yields approved permits in the near term.
