Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies jurisdiction request and upholds suspension of permits at 874 Fell Street
Summary
The board denied a request to reopen a planning NOV appeal and upheld suspensions of permits related to the carriage‑house project at 874 Fell Street after finding inconsistencies between architectural and structural drawings; suspensions remain in place pending a reconciled plan set (board vote 3–0).
On Sept. 24 the San Francisco Board of Appeals refused to accept a late jurisdiction request and upheld a planning‑department suspension of certain permits for work at 874 Fell Street.
Requestor Eric Roussell argued he did not receive adequate notice of a final notice of violation and penalty decision because certified mail was sent to an address he said he had vacated and an email was embedded in an unrelated thread. He asked the board to take jurisdiction, re‑issue notices or otherwise delay enforcement. Planning staff responded that certified mail was sent to the property address on record, that the property owner had been represented at the administrative hearing in October and counsel was copied on subsequent emails, and that the Sunshine Task Force review had closed.
The board applied its rules: after an appeal period expires the board lacks jurisdiction except in extraordinary circumstances demonstrating the city intentionally or inadvertently prevented timely filing. The board concluded the department used the official mailing address, sent certified mail, and provided email copies; the jurisdiction request was denied.
Separately the board considered a planning request to suspend three permits (identified in the record) for the rear carriage‑house work because structural drawings submitted to DBI showed a greater degree of removal than the architectural plans submitted to planning, creating a potential de‑facto demolition that could trigger conditional‑use authorization or variance requirements. Planning and DBI recommended suspension until a single reconciled plan set is submitted that clearly shows the scope of removal and proposed work.
The board agreed suspension is a proportional remedy and protects the permit holder from proceeding under inconsistent documentation; commissioners noted suspension is lighter than revocation and allows the permit holder to submit revised, consistent plans. The motion to deny the appeal of the suspensions succeeded 3–0; the suspensions remain in effect pending the permit holder's filing of coordinated architectural and structural plans.
What's next: Planning recommended the permit holder submit a single reconciled plan set that consistently documents the proposed scope of work; DBI and planning will review the new submittal and the suspension will remain until the departments confirm consistency and whether any conditional‑use process is required.
