Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies rehearing request for Twentieth Street excavation; appellant sought delay and sound barrier
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied a rehearing request from Ingrid Eggers regarding a neighbor’s excavation permit at 3751–3753 Twentieth Street, finding no new material facts and voting 4–0 to deny. Eggers had asked for a Sept. 1 start date and a sound barrier.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 12 denied a rehearing request from appellant Ingrid Eggers related to a Department of Building Inspection permit (permit at issue 201808177643) for temporary shoring and excavation at 3751–3753 Twentieth Street.
Eggers told the board the excavation would disrupt her Airbnb business and asked that work be postponed until Sept. 1 and that the developer install a sound barrier. She said the shoring engineer estimated an eight‑month excavation and expressed concern about noise and precedent for deeper garages in the historic district.
The project’s architect, Shane Kernan, told commissioners the excavation uses hand‑dug piers — small, constrained piers dug with buckets — and explained why the work would take time but not require heavy, noisy machinery.
City staff and commissioners reviewed the standard for granting a rehearing, which requires a showing of new or different material facts such that a failure to know those facts could have affected the original outcome. Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi read the rule aloud. Commissioners said they sympathized with Eggers’s hardship but found she had not presented new evidence meeting the high bar for rehearing. Commissioner Daryl Honda moved to deny the rehearing request on the grounds there was no manifest injustice; the motion carried 4–0.
The board recorded that the original decision had been a 4–0 denial and upheld the permit. Commissioners encouraged the permit holder to be sensitive to neighbors where reasonable mitigation is economically feasible, but noted the board could not order noise mitigation beyond what the permit or code required.
