Board upholds Planning suspension of two permits for Folsom Street owners; offers paths to resolve

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 30 denied an appeal by Michael and Lauren Turan and sustained the Planning Department’s request to suspend two building permits for their property at 2722–2724 Folsom Street. The decision followed a lengthy hearing featuring legal argument, staff presentations and extensive public comment from neighbors in support of the Turans.

The Turans described catastrophic fire damage in 2018 and said they relied on city permits and inspections to rebuild; they and their counsel argued the Planning Department and DBI had knowledge of the property’s history, that a March 2020 abatement permit labeled a ground-floor space a “laundry,” and that suspending the permits now after the couple spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair the house would amount to an unfair and legally barred action. Counsel Ryan Patterson cited doctrines including laches and estoppel and urged the board to reinstate the permits or, at minimum, to allow a swift path to remedy.

Planning staff and DBI presented a different factual interpretation of the record. Scott Sanchez (Planning) summarized a long permitting history in which earlier records and a prior Board of Appeals review left unresolved a question of whether the building contained an unauthorized dwelling unit (UDU) on the ground floor. Planning said a space with independent access and a history of separate rental use can qualify as a UDU under Planning Code §3.17; the department argues the front ground‑floor space meets that definition and that the removal or legalization of a UDU requires a conditional‑use authorization process.

Joe Duffy (DBI) said DBI records and subsequent review led the agency to update its CFC (certificate of final compliance) and that DBI lacks unilateral authority to redesignate a room by permit alone. DBI recommended a pre‑application meeting to identify code and life‑safety issues if the owners pursue restoration or legalization steps.

More than two dozen neighbors and community members urged the board to allow the Turans to finish repairs, saying the family had acted in good faith and that prolonged suspension could force a sale or displacement. The owners offered a compromise during argument — to create a compliant ADU in a rear accessory structure as a replacement third unit — but Planning said such a resolution requires formal filings and Planning Commission review.

After discussion the panel concluded the suspension request was properly issued and that the question of the UDU and any replacement unit required discrete processes: either the owners restore the ground‑floor unit via building permit (the fastest route, subject to DBI review of work already done) or they submit a conditional‑use authorization application to remove the UDU and propose an ADU in the rear structure (a longer process that requires Planning Commission review). The board denied the appeal 3–0, effectively leaving the suspension in place until the owners pursue one of those paths.

The board’s decision preserved Planning’s procedural authority and instructed staff and the Turans to pursue the corrective pathway the owners choose. Commissioners repeatedly said they were sympathetic to the Turans’ situation but that the board could not bypass Planning Code processes.

Next steps: the board indicated restoring the ground‑floor unit via a building permit may be the quickest path to reinstate use and shorten the occupancy interruption; Planning and DBI offered to prioritize pre‑application and technical review to the extent possible.