Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jurisdiction Cu Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defers complex jurisdiction question at 1102 Taraval Street to city attorney review
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued a jurisdiction request over a 1102 Taraval Street permit after extended debate over whether a building permit to abate code violations falls within a prior conditional-use authorization; the board requested legal analysis of Charter section 4.106.
The board debated a jurisdiction request for 1102 Taraval Street at length on May 5, focusing on whether a subsequent building permit that addresses interior demolition and a notice of violation (NOV) falls within the scope of a prior Planning Commission conditional-use (CU) authorization (Motion 17,993 adopted Dec. 3, 2009), and therefore is appealable to the Board of Supervisors rather than the Board of Appeals.
Requester Nancy Wuerfel argued the issued permit (permit number 201003238808) was limited to abating code violations and did not invoke the conditional-use authorization for a restaurant; she asked the Board to take jurisdiction so she could pursue alleged procedural defects and possible city liability. "I am disputing that the issued permit is pursuant to this conditional use authorization... The restaurant that is the project protected by CU from appeal is not even mentioned," she said.
Project sponsor Damian Quinn and Planning Department staff (Scott Sanchez) presented the CU findings and Exhibit B plans, which they said show the demolition and interior work were anticipated by the CU and that the Planning Commission reviewed those plans as part of its motion. Senior Building Inspector Joe Duffy told the board that interior demolition permits are commonly processed at DBI without routing to planning unless flagged, and that in this case the NOV-related permit had a final inspection reported as completed.
The board asked the city attorney to review Charter section 4.106 and whether the scope of the CU (as shown in the approved Exhibit B and building plans) meant the subsequent permit was not within the board's jurisdiction. The board continued the matter to May 19 to allow the city attorney and staff to advise on the ramifications of taking jurisdiction over a finalized permit.
