Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds permit for 108 Congdon, denies neighbors' drainage appeal 3–0
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 10 denied an appeal from neighbors who argued a raised foundation at 108 Congdon would block natural runoff and flood their home, upholding the permit 3–0 after testimony from appellants, the permit holder and city departments.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 10, 2024 denied an appeal filed by William Chan and Lydia Lee challenging a Department of Building Inspection and Planning Department alteration permit for the rear of 108 Congdon, voting 3–0 to uphold the permit.
Appellants told the board they fear a neighbor’s recently elevated foundation — which they said was raised about 18 inches — will block the natural downhill flow of stormwater and ‘‘it will flood into my house.’’ They presented dated photos and text-message records they said show work continued after they filed an appeal and after a suspension order was issued.
The permit holder, identified at the hearing as Mr. Lavatoria, and representatives of Harmony Design and Development said the work responds to structural and safety concerns and disputed claims that construction continued after suspension. ‘‘The appellant’s argument that runoff from their property must drain into my property is crazy and selfish,’’ the permit holder said, arguing there is roughly 15 feet of space for drainage and that the permit was properly issued. Harmony owner Jessica Nemerovsky Atoll told the board that claims of continuing work after suspension were ‘‘completely false’’ and said inspectors had directed the contractor to stop.
City staff from Planning and DBI told the board their reviews support allowing the permit to stand. Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, said the permit was approved over-the-counter and ‘‘the permit was reviewed and issued properly.’’ A DBI representative said the primary cause of the dispute appears to be extensive paving of the appellant’s backyard and roof leaders directing water into adjacent property; the inspector estimated ‘‘approximately 1,200 to 1,500 square foot of paving’’ and cited San Francisco Building Code Appendix J, which requires storm drains for impervious surfaces over 200 square feet.
The board’s deliberations focused on whether the permit was properly issued under applicable codes, not on the neighbors’ hardship. Vice President Lundberg said the neighbors’ concerns are genuine but that DBI testimony did not show the permit was improperly issued. He moved to deny the appeal ‘‘on the basis that it was properly issued.’’ Commissioners John Trezvina and JR Eppler voted ‘‘Aye,’’ and the motion carried 3–0.
The board did not order a modification to the permit. DBI staff told the board after the vote that potential mitigation options for the parties include installing pumps or creating pervious areas by removing some pavers to allow infiltration; DBI also noted that some work may have been allowed to continue under a separate permit for interior work that was unrelated to the drainage claim. The board concluded the hearing after announcing the vote.
