Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permit Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors contest Ninth Avenue site permit, allege wrong plans and unpermitted foundation work; Board continues case
Summary
Neighbors appealed the site permit for 56620 Ninth Avenue, saying the plans they received differed from the work being done and that foundation work was performed without proper permits and damaged adjacent property; the Board continued the matter to March 7 so Planning can confirm what plans were mailed to neighbors.
Anthony Tam and family members told the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 21 that the final plans for 56620 Ninth Avenue differed materially from the 3/11 neighborhood notice they received and that the permit holder’s foundation work exceeded what was shown in prior drawings, allowing dirt and sand to encroach into Tam’s foundation. Tam asked the board to require the project be built to the revised plans the neighbors had previously approved and to hold the permit holder to that scope.
John Lum, the project architect for the Wangs, said the property owners purchased the house to expand and add a second unit, that permits had been processed over several years and that a separate foundation permit issue was resolved previously, with the owners paying the neighbor for repairs. Corey Teague of the Planning Department said the revised 3/11 notification was conducted in April 2017 and that department records show the materials sent to ReproMail matched the current proposal. Senior Building Inspector Joseph Duffy told commissioners DBI had abated earlier complaints and that current DBI records show only one notice of violation for a vacant building; he recommended careful plan review and inspection of any future foundation work.
Commissioners debated whether mis‑mailed or out‑of‑date hard‑copy plans might amount to a due‑process problem for neighbors who did not see the newer drawings. Several commissioners said the permit, as issued, appears to conform to the planning code and residential design guidelines, but that the unresolved question about what was physically mailed to neighbors could warrant a short continuance. The board voted to continue the item to March 7, 2018, for the Zoning Administrator to verify which plans were actually sent to the surrounding neighbors; the motion passed 3–1 (President Fung and Vice President Swigg and Commissioner Lazarus in favor; Commissioner Honda opposed).
The board did not make a final determination on the appeal and expects an update from Planning at the next hearing.
