Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco Board of Appeals denies rehearing request in 617 Sanchez soil-safety dispute
Summary
The Board denied a rehearing request from a neighbor challenging the May 8 decision on 617 Sanchez Street, finding no new material evidence; DBI said it will require third‑party peer review and additional borings if its engineers deem them necessary.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 12 denied a rehearing request from an adjacent property owner challenging the board’s May 8 decision on a proposed four‑story home at 617 Sanchez Street.
The request, brought by attorney Sue Hester on behalf of appellant George Rothenberg, sought to reopen the case on grounds related to the accuracy and scope of the geotechnical (soils) report. Hester said the transcript of the prior hearing showed the board had discussed soils‑report shortcomings and precedent concerns. Structural engineer Albert Arrutia, representing the neighboring owner at 619 Sanchez Street, said, “My client's main concern is the safety of this property and their house at 619 Sanchez Street,” and asked the board to require a peer reviewer with authority to order additional borings and to provide the appellant copies of new reports and foundation drawings promptly.
The board reviewed rehearing standards read into the record by Deputy City Attorney Jen Huber, which require a showing of new or different material facts unless extraordinary circumstances or manifest injustice are at issue. Multiple commissioners said they heard a continuation of prior arguments rather than new evidence. Commissioner Rick Swig, who moved to deny rehearing, summarized that no new material facts had been presented that would change the May 8 outcome.
Kevin Birmingham of the Department of Building Inspection told the board DBI “will not issue the permit unless all the recommendations of the board are met,” including third‑party peer review and additional borings if DBI’s engineers require them, and said DBI would share findings with the permit holder and affected neighbors. Public commenters urged additional boreholes at the front lot line and noted a house slated for demolition at the rear remains occupied and rented.
The board voted to deny the rehearing request (motion carries 4–0). Commissioners emphasized the department’s oversight and said DBI’s peer‑review process and additional geotechnical work, if required, are the appropriate mechanisms to protect neighboring properties. The board recorded that parties may pursue civil remedies if property damage occurs, but it found no basis under the rehearing standard to reopen the May 8 decision.
