Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Notice And Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors say Green Street excavation exceeded notice; DBI inspector found work matched approved permit
Summary
Residents near 1170/1180 Green Street raised alarms that excavation, foundation removal and other work exceeded the scope of public notice; DBI staff read a site‑visit letter concluding the work matched permit 9925728 and that required excavation notifications are the contractor’s responsibility under the building code.
Neighbors and the Building Inspection Commission debated whether public notices gave enough information about excavation and underpinning at 1170/1180 Green Street in Russian Hill.
Ed Sweeney read a response letter from senior inspector Tom Venizelos reporting a 05/10/2008 site visit with the architect and contractor. The letter states that “permit application 9925728 allows for the installation of garages along Green Street,” that the permit included a four‑story addition and a full seismic upgrade, and that excavation to accommodate garage ceiling height and foundation work were part of the approved scope.
Complainant Kathleen Courtney, a resident of 1158 Green Street, told commissioners she had lived on the block nearly 30 years and said the project had been a “poster child for a flawed planning process.” Courtney said photographs taken during the site visit show structural work that, in her view, exceeded the posted scope and that she was concerned about neighbor notification and slope/stability risks.
Architect Bruce Bonacker (representing the current owner) said he had provided the approved drawings during the site visit and that the current owner bought the property with an existing permit that dates to 1999. “We have been working very, very closely with Kathleen and John … to resolve this,” Bonacker said, and he said senior staff reviewed foundation design and found it compliant with a revised approach.
Commissioners and staff discussed whether notices issued by Planning are sufficiently descriptive for lay audiences. One commissioner noted that a planning notice that says “fourth floor” may not clearly communicate excavation and underpinning needs to neighbors. Staff said the department’s BPR (business process reengineering) work has already identified noticing and coordination with Planning as items for improvement and that they will seek clearer notice language and better field coordination.
DBI said the contractor (the party performing excavation) is responsible for notifying adjacent property owners under the code and that the department’s senior inspector conducted a site visit with complainants and the architect and matched on‑site conditions to the approved plans. Staff did not provide a change to the permit; rather, they recommended continued review and improved notice language as part of ongoing process changes.
The commission asked staff to continue reviewing how notices are written and circulated and to consider steps that would reduce neighbor confusion about excavation, underpinning and other visible impacts from multi‑year permits.
