Abatement Appeals Board issues order for Unit 924 at 855 Folsom, suspends enforcement for 60 days

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on Dec. 17 issued an order of abatement for Unit 924 at 855 Folsom Street (case 6716855) and suspended enforcement and recordation of that order for 60 days to allow the property owner time to obtain issued permits and complete required work.

Appellant counsel Eileen, representing owners Mark Dresser and J.C. Thomas, told the board the owners filed a separate permit to return the space to its previously permitted condition and asked the panel to continue the case 90 days because the lender had sent a foreclosure acceleration notice after the director’s hearing notice was issued. Counsel characterized the violation as “technical” and said the owners had disclosed the condition when they purchased the unit. Permit applicant Mr. Boskovich said the remaining technical issues involve the exact wall location relative to a 7-foot-6-inch ceiling and the 50% mezzanine calculation; he estimated the immediate wall work at about $500 and said remaining delay was primarily coordination of inspections across four divisions.

Deputy Director Ray Louie and DBI staff reported plan-check comments remain outstanding and that earlier submissions had not conformed to code. DBI staff confirmed the permit application filed for Unit 924 indicates the work will “comply with NOV number 200717416 to seal up concealed space,” leave 50% mezzanine, install a 1‑hour wall with an access panel, and leave a concealed sprinkler while removing electrical in the dead space. Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Boskey said staff would look into lender-reaction concerns and asked the board to clarify whether to continue the matter or apply the timetable used in previously heard cases.

Commissioners debated options and penalties. Board members discussed the legal limits of their authority over private lender actions, alternative timetables (60 vs. 90 days), and the appropriate penalty calculation tied to permit value and department costs. At the hearing the board read a motion modeled on prior decisions: issue the order of abatement and suspend enforcement and recordation for 60 days to allow the owner to obtain issued permits to legalize or remove mezzanine work; if the requisite permits are not issued within 60 days, the order would be recorded, the owner would have 10 days to pick up issued permits and 60 additional days to complete the work as verified by final inspection. The board also agreed to receive an update in 30 days.

On roll call the motion passed unanimously: President Lee — yes; Vice President Walker — yes; Commissioner Hetchanova/Hedgenova — yes; Commissioner Levitt — yes; Commissioner Murphy — yes; Commissioner Romero — yes; Commissioner Satori — yes. The board instructed staff to coordinate with the city attorney about lender-notification concerns and to monitor permit progress.

The action leaves the notice of violation in the public record but suspends immediate enforcement and recordation of an abatement order while the owner pursues the permit path required by DBI. If the permits are not issued within 60 days, the order will be recorded and enforcement timelines will follow the motion’s terms.