Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Tenants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DBI permit to remove alleged illegal unit at 2888 Folsom St.; tenant appeals denied 3-1
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied tenant Eric Foss's appeal and upheld a Department of Building Inspection permit allowing New China Realty to remove and convert a basement garage unit at 2888 Folsom St. to storage, citing record evidence the building is recorded as a six-unit property and contractor/inspector testimony about unsafe conditions; vote 3-1.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 10, 2012 denied an appeal by tenant Eric Foss and upheld a Department of Building Inspection permit that allows the owner to remove an alleged illegal unit at 2888 Folsom Street.
Foss told the Board he signed a residential lease Sept. 5, 2011 and said he was not informed the unit was "illegal," arguing that the timing of permits left him short of one-year tenancy protections (including eligibility for 60-day notice and relocation benefits) and that there had been no prior DBI inspection or notice of violation. He asked the Board to deny the permit on that basis.
Thomas Wu, for New China Realty (the permit holder), and several witnesses presented documentary and field evidence showing the property is recorded in city records as a six-unit building and that the rear garage-level space has no record of permits for conversion to a dwelling. Wu said historical permits and Sanborn maps show six units and that the owners acted after learning the unit lacked permits.
DBI and Planning staff confirmed records indicate the parcel is recorded as a six-unit structure. Contractor Tom Corbett and others testified about likely unsafe conditions (improper wiring, plumbing and egress issues) and said removal to storage would restore the space to its permitted use. DBI staff said the over-the-counter permit process for voluntarily removing a unit had been followed.
Board members expressed sympathy for the tenant's situation and concern about timing and acceptance of rent but noted the central issue before them was whether the permit had been properly issued given the building's permit history and safety evidence. Commissioners agreed the permit should be upheld; the motion to deny the appeal passed 3-1.
The Board suggested tenant remedies lie in landlord-tenant forums or other civil remedies regarding timing and relocation benefits rather than by blocking a properly issued safety-driven permit.
