The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-0 on Oct. 8 to deny a rehearing request for appeal 25‑029 concerning structural work at 1077 Fell Street after an appellant submitted a stamped set of structural calculations she said showed the approved plans do not meet building-code requirements.

The rehearing request sought another de novo review of a permit the board upheld on Sept. 3. Appellant Sumya Sastry told the board an independent structural engineer prepared calculations after the Sept. 3 hearing that, she said, show the project fails to meet current seismic and overturning requirements and that additional permits or revisions would be required. SFGovTV video and the record show DBI field staff issued correction notes and flagged additional permit work for interior and exterior repairs.

Board members emphasized the rehearing standard requires new facts that could not have been produced earlier. Commissioners said Sastr y’s engineer provided a stamped calculation after the Sept. 3 hearing and that the document constituted new supporting material, but several commissioners expressed concern about relying on third‑party engineering without the applicant’s engineer and DBI plan reviewers having the opportunity to examine those calculations in detail.

DBI representatives told the board the original permit was reviewed by plan check and inspectors and found code‑compliant at the time of issuance, and that inspectors had documented discrepancies observed in the field and placed correction notes on the job card requiring a revision permit. Philip Chan, a plan reviewer with DBI, explained plan review assesses the submitted documents; field inspectors validate whether constructed conditions match approved plans and can require revisions where they do not.

The board denied the rehearing request on a motion from Commissioner Rick Swigg, which included a modification encouraging the permit holder, the appellant and DBI to review the stamped calculations the appellant submitted and to coordinate any needed revision permit. Vote: 3‑0. Commissioners said the denial reflected that the core arguments were presented at the prior hearing and that the new submission largely quantified points previously raised; the board recorded its expectation that DBI would consider the third‑party calculations during any revision review.

What happens next: DBI and the permit holder indicated the permit holder will file a revision to address DBI correction notes; DBI said a plan review engineer would examine any new structural calculations submitted as part of a revision. The board’s action preserved DBI’s administrative path — correction notices and a revision permit — while urging DBI to review the appellant’s engineering evidence when the revision is filed.

The record shows the rehearing request (appeal 25‑029), the permit number under review (20256269586) and DBI correction notes documenting required work on the cantilevered floor, joists and masonry that touched on shear‑wall continuity. The board did not direct any immediate new enforcement action beyond its motion to deny and the encouragement to DBI to review the appellant’s engineer’s calculations when formally submitted.

Ending: The board’s denial leaves open DBI’s administrative pathways: issuing correction notices, requiring a revision permit and having plan reviewers examine any new engineering submittals. Commissioners said they expected DBI to treat bona fide third‑party engineering evidence seriously in that revision process.