Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board requires independent geotechnical review after neighbors raise safety and privacy concerns at 617 Sanchez
Summary
After neighbors warned that a planned excavation and four‑story house at 617 Sanchez could endanger adjacent 1906 structures, the Board of Appeals denied two demolition‑permit appeals but granted the site‑permit appeal subject to a third‑party geotechnical peer review to be arranged through DBI. The board voted 5–0 on the actions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 8 resolved three linked appeals for 617 Sanchez Street, denying two appeals of demolition permits and placing a new condition on the site permit for a proposed four‑story home.
Appellants, represented by attorney Sue Hester and structural consultant Albert Arrutia, told the board the lot is extremely steep — appellants offered estimates of a 30 percent slope — and said excavation for the proposed front‑lot construction could expose up to 13 feet of the neighboring foundation. They argued that only a single boring, taken toward the back of the lot, was inadequate to characterize subsurface conditions under the proposed mass excavation at the front. Arrutia and neighbors asked for additional borings at the front and for third‑party or Structural Advisory Committee (SAC) review of shoring and drainage plans.
Permit‑holder counsel Justin Zucker and the project team said the site permit is a schematic approval and that detailed shoring, foundation and drainage plans are submitted later as addenda; DBI had reviewed the geotechnical report and assigned a Tier 1 review level. Zucker and the architect said the geotechnical work relied on neighboring borings and that asbestos abatement work and initial geotechnical investigations were in place.
DBI staff told commissioners that its geotechnical engineers had reviewed the submitted reports and found the site suitable at a Tier 1 level, but agreed the department could require further borings or peer review if new information justified it.
Commissioners debated whether the board could order a Tier 3 SAC review or otherwise reclassify the project. The Deputy City Attorney advised the board that DBI has discretion to require third‑party peer review (a Tier 2 action) and the building official may, after peer review, establish a SAC. Based on those authorities and the public safety concerns raised, the board: denied the two demolition‑permit appeals (upheld those permits) and, by a separate 5–0 vote, granted the appellants'site‑permit appeal with a condition requiring third‑party peer review by a licensed geotechnical engineer arranged by DBI.
The board's action preserves demolition permits while adding an independent geotechnical review requirement before the site permit progresses through DBI addenda review. Commissioners and staff repeatedly urged parties to continue neighbor engagement and document exchanges as addenda-level materials are prepared.
