Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues appeal of DBI revocations for Second Street renovation; parties told to file consolidated plans
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued a high‑stakes appeal by 6 Dogs LLC after DBI revoked nine permits for a completed renovation at 3426–3432 Second St., directing the owner to submit a consolidated set of accurate plans and meet with city departments. The board warned revocation could remain if the parties fail to cooperate.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 4 continued an appeal by 6 Dogs LLC after the Department of Building Inspection revoked nine permits for a renovation at 3426–3432 Second St., saying the owner must submit a consolidated, accurate set of plans and work with city departments to resolve multiple code and planning issues.
In testimony before the five‑member panel, appellant attorney Scott Amblidge and structural engineer Pat Buskovich said the work was generally safe and that the permit irregularities could be corrected through a revision or consolidated permit. “Minor deviations are all solved at the end of the project,” Buskovich said, adding inspectors had previously signed off on multiple concrete pours and other inspections that would be undone by revocation.
DBI officials told the board they had found a range of discrepancies between the issued permits and the work on the site, including rear‑facing replacement windows not shown on the plans, new skylights, alterations to the front garage footing and a ground‑floor platform not reflected in permit documents. Chief building inspector Mauricio Hernandez said DBI repeatedly offered a path forward — a single consolidated permit that would document the full scope — but that the permit holder resisted providing the back‑up materials DBI needed. “The plans misrepresent the existing conditions throughout the set of plans,” Hernandez said.
Amblidge and Buskovich told the board they had prepared a 36‑sheet consolidated set of drawings and were attempting to work with Planning and DBI. But Amblidge and Commissioner Dennis Richards said the speed and timing of DBI’s revocation — taken the same day as a notice of violation in late September — suggested retaliatory enforcement in the context of recent disputes between DBI and members of the Planning Commission. DBI officials denied the charge and emphasized safety and plan accuracy as their reasons for revocation.
After hearing extensive public comment and technical presentations, the Board of Appeals voted to continue the matter to March 18, 2020 and instructed the appellants to deliver a full set of corrected consolidated plans to the board office the Thursday before the hearing. The board pressed both sides to use the interval to meet with DBI and Planning and to address any required variances or preservation reviews. President Rick Swig said the board expected “a clean set of plans” on which departments could act.
The board left revocation in place for now; commissioners warned that if the parties do not make meaningful progress, revocation remains a possible outcome. The continuation preserves the board’s jurisdiction and gives the parties and departments a structured timetable to resolve the technical and planning issues that DBI and Planning identified.
What happens next: the permit holder must supply the consolidated plans and meet with Planning and DBI. If those plans show work requiring a variance, Planning said a variance process could add months; the board encouraged the appellants to consider design changes to avoid a variance where feasible.
— Reporting from the San Francisco Board of Appeals meeting on Dec. 4, 2019. Quotes and timeline based on public hearing transcript and departmental presentations.
