Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permits Finalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Safeway permit renewals; DBI to inspect flashing and may issue Notices of Violation
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied appeals by adjacent property owners and upheld permit renewals sought by Safeway at 730 Caraval/Taraval. DBI will proceed with final inspections and said it will issue Notices of Violation if flashing fasteners or other work are found to encroach on neighboring property.
The Board of Appeals on Sept. 27 denied a series of appeals filed by the Lee family challenging finalization and renewal of multiple Safeway permits for the Safeway store at 730 Caraval/Taraval and related rooftop/parking deck work. Appellant counsel Stephen Williams argued that open and expired permits and flashing attached to the Lee building had penetrated the neighboring stucco and caused moisture intrusion and mold.
Safeway counsel said the renewals were necessary to obtain final inspections for work completed under older permits and that the company has offered to repair flashing and to cooperate with inspections. Safeway representatives indicated some of the original work dates to the 1970s and that Safeway sought permit renewals to obtain final signoff.
DBI Senior Inspector Joe Duffy told the board that renewing permits to schedule final inspections is standard practice and that, given the complaint, DBI would conduct site inspections and could issue Notices of Violation if inspectors observe screws or flashing attached to another building. DBI noted it had issued a notice of violation after the Lee family complaint and that issuance of a renewal permit does not itself validate work; final inspection is required to confirm code compliance.
After deliberation the board moved to deny the appeals and uphold the permits as properly issued so DBI can proceed with inspections and enforcement. The motion passed; DBI said it will follow up with inspections and enforcement actions (including potential NOVs) and encouraged the parties to cooperate to address waterproofing and repair needs. The underlying private litigation between the parties remains separate and may determine claims for damages.
