Board upholds permit for 3160 Jackson Street after reviewing shoring plans; neighbors to receive submitted engineering documents

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 19 denied an appeal from neighbors Lana and John Adair and upheld the planning approval and Department of Building Inspection (DBI) site permit for work at 3160 Jackson Street, finding the project code compliant. The vote was 4–0.

The appeal centered on a proposed deep excavation — the permit holder’s team described the overall excavation as about 25 feet — adjacent to a roughly century-old unreinforced concrete retaining wall on the Adairs’ property. The Adairs hired structural engineer Daryl Harris, who told the board he found large cracks in the existing wall, no reinforcing steel and a foundation that appeared “marginally designed.” Harris said the proposed excavation would go roughly 15 feet below the bottom of that wall and that, without the project team’s shoring designs, “there’s a good chance this wall will fail.”

Representing the permit holder, architect Steven Sutro and the project’s structural and shoring engineers described a conventional, city-standard approach to temporary shoring and permanent retaining structures. Danny Kwan, a structural principal at Holmes, and Jason Powers, the engineer responsible for the shoring design, told commissioners they had coordinated a temporary hand‑dug pier and lagging shoring method and a monitoring plan to protect adjacent properties. DBI staff said the submitted addenda (engineering/shoring drawings) are with DBI plan review but cannot be processed while the site-permit approval was suspended during the appeal.

Much of the hearing focused on process: the Adairs said they repeatedly asked the permit holder for the project’s shoring and monitoring documents and were told the documents existed but were not shared. The permit holder’s team said draft addenda had been submitted to DBI and that they had hesitated to circulate drafts before DBI plan-review comments were returned because of repeated, detailed challenges from the neighbors during earlier permitting steps.

Board members discussed options including a continuance so the Adairs could review the documents. The permit holder’s counsel, Tom Tunney, offered to provide the addenda and technical reports to the appellants and to DBI; the permit holder also offered to accept a condition that the permit be issued with a requirement to provide those documents to the Adairs and allow DBI review. Commissioners said DBI engineers have the authority and responsibility to scrutinize shoring and structural plans and to require changes before issuing final approvals.

Commissioner Swigg moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit, noting the departments found the project code-compliant; he also said the permit holder had committed to share engineering documents. The motion carried 4–0 (Lopez: Aye; President Trezwina: Aye; Vice President Epler: Aye; Swigg: Aye). The board recorded that the permit holder should provide the appellants and DBI with the technical shoring, monitoring and geotechnical documents; DBI confirmed it will continue its plan-review and monitoring process when the addenda are active in its review queue.

The board’s action allows the permit to proceed with DBI’s plan-review and with the requirement that the permit holder and DBI coordinate with the Adairs on the engineering information the Adairs requested.