Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conditional Use Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses for plans and geotechnical detail in Filbert Street jurisdiction fight
Summary
The board continued a jurisdiction request over three building permits at 1338 Filbert Street to March 16 and required simultaneous three‑page filings plus exhibits, asking parties to clarify whether permits were issued pursuant to a prior conditional use authorization or represent new, significant changes (notably a retaining wall and geotechnical concerns).
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 9 set a tight schedule for additional materials after hearing competing arguments over whether three building permits for 1338 Filbert Street are appealable to this body or fall within a prior conditional use (CU) authorization.
Requester Jerry Demartini’s counsel, Susan Brant Holly, argued the most recent permits (two in September 2010) involved substantial, post‑CU changes — most critically a redesigned retaining wall and geotechnical work — that the parties say are unrelated to the earlier CU and therefore within the board’s review. The requester submitted an expert geotechnical report arguing the proposed construction could dewater and threaten neighboring properties.
Property owners’ counsel Andrew Junius and planning staff countered that conditional use authorization places the project squarely within CU jurisdiction and that building permits are typically reviewed by planning for consistency; significant deviations are returned to the Planning Commission. Zoning and planning staff explained the typical process: CU findings are broad, building permits must be checked for consistency, and if significant deviations exist the planning department will remand to the commission.
After questioning about timelines, permit descriptions and the technical scope of the retaining‑wall work, the board voted to continue the matter to March 16 and ordered simultaneous three‑page briefs with unlimited exhibits, due by noon the Monday prior, to clarify whether the permits at issue were issued “pursuant to” the CU or represent changes that should be reviewed anew. The board explicitly asked for plans, site graphics and — if available — the geotechnical report.
