Board denies jurisdictional challenge and upholds suspension of permits at 874 Fell Street

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 24 declined to take jurisdiction over a late appeal of a notice of violation and later denied an appeal of Planning’s decision to suspend two earlier permits for work on a carriage house at 874 Fell Street.

The requester and property owner, Eric Roussel, asked the board to accept a late jurisdictional appeal of a final notice of violation and penalty decision related to an unauthorized dwelling unit (UDU). The board determined the Planning Department had provided notice by certified mail to the address on file and had also sent an email copy; President John Trezvina said the city’s mailing met due‑process standards and the board would not take jurisdiction on the late filing. The jurisdiction request was denied 3–0.

Separately the board considered Planning’s suspension of two older building permits tied to the rear carriage house (permit numbers from 2013 and 2020). Planning told the board it had found inconsistencies between the architectural drawings filed with Planning and the structural drawings filed with the Department of Building Inspection; specifically, Planning staff reported that structural drawings showed a larger amount of removal than the architectural plans showed and that discrepancy could, depending on the final scope, trigger de facto demolition rules that would require a conditional use authorization and possibly a variance.

“To be clear…there was more of the building being proposed to be demolished and removed in the structural plans than there were in the architectural plans,” Zoning Administrator Corey Teague told the board. Teague said Planning and DBI agreed the appropriate administrative step was to suspend the older permits so the permit holder can submit a single, consistent plan set that accurately shows the extent of removal or reconstruction before any work proceeds.

Roussel disputed the department’s process and said enforcement and repeated neighbor complaints had been unfair; he also said he had provided an updated plan to Planning and asked the board to allow work to continue. Roussel said he had asked Planning staff to confirm a January site visit showed no work in progress in the carriage house and that prior complaints had yielded no violation.

DBI supported the suspension, and the board framed the suspension as a protective measure for both the city and the property owner: it prevents inadvertent removal that might later be characterized as demolition and it gives the owner a clear path to submit corrected plans.

Commissioners agreed suspension — not revocation — was the correct administrative step. Commissioner Rick Swig said the suspension protects permit holders from inadvertently triggering a more onerous demolition/conditional‑use process and provides a path to resolve differences. On a motion to deny the appeal of the suspension, the board voted 3–0 to uphold the suspension and deny the appeal.

What happens next: Planning and DBI will expect a consolidated, accurate set of architectural and structural drawings from the permit holder. The suspension holds the two listed permits until the departments can determine whether the proposed work constitutes de facto demolition requiring a conditional use authorization, or whether a corrected plan can proceed under the existing permitting framework.