Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies neighbors’ request to take jurisdiction over Greenwich Street excavation
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a jurisdiction request from neighbors of 2622 Greenwich Street who said an unpermitted excavation undermined adjacent foundations; the board voted 4-0, with Planning and DBI saying notification and remedies followed code procedures.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 4-0 vote denied a jurisdiction request from neighbors of 2622 Greenwich Street who said a year-old unpermitted excavation undermined nearby foundations and should have been subject to additional notice.
Jeremy Paul, representing the neighborhood requester, told commissioners that the project sponsor "exceeded it by illegally excavating 300 cubic yards of dirt," and that the excavation had "undermined the foundations of both of the adjacent properties." He asked the board to take jurisdiction so the neighbors could appeal after missing the standard filing window.
Planning Department staffer Scott Sanchez replied that the block-book notification (BBN) is a policy, not a planning-code requirement, and is issued only on the planning department's initial review. "The BBN or block book notification is a policy. It is not a planning code requirement," he said, and noted the permit at issue was initially reviewed in October 2019 and later routed back for restamping without triggering a new BBN notice.
Joe Duffy of the Department of Building Inspection said DBI had issued notices of violation for 2622 and the adjoining properties in October 2019 after inspectors determined the excavation had exposed neighbors' foundations. "We issued notices of violation on the on the property 2622," Duffy said, and described work that created an urgent need for retaining walls and engineer coordination.
Several neighbors spoke during public comment. Adjacent owner Chris Wagner said the excavation had "undermined our foundation and compromised our building" and asked the board to grant neighbors an opportunity to be heard. Laurie Brook, another neighbor, said the dirt pile from the excavation was closer to 200–300 cubic yards and argued that temporary retaining walls on the permit holder's lot did not ensure long-term protection for neighboring foundations.
Board members repeatedly expressed sympathy for the neighbors but agreed the narrow jurisdictional question before them was whether the city had caused the requester to miss the normal appeal deadline. Commissioners said the planning and building departments had followed existing notice and permit procedures and that taking jurisdiction would set a precedent allowing late appeals in similar cases.
Vice President Honda moved to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city did not intentionally or inadvertently prevent a timely appeal; the motion carried 4-0 (Commissioners Santacana, President Lazarus and Commissioner Swigg voted aye). The board did not order a stop to work; DBI indicated it had issued NOVs and would continue to pursue remedies for foundation and structural concerns.
What happens next: Commissioners and DBI urged neighbors and the permit holder to continue engineering coordination. The board declined to substitute its judgment for DBI or Planning on technical remediation or code enforcement questions.
