Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses jurisdiction decision for 917 Florida Avenue after questions about notifications and excavation
Summary
Neighbors at 917 Florida Avenue asked the Board to take jurisdiction over a permit they say led to excavation and foundation work without adequate neighborhood notification; the Board continued the item to allow the Department of Building Inspection to review whether required notices were needed and given.
San Francisco — The Board of Appeals continued a jurisdiction request for 917 Florida Avenue on April 20 to allow Department of Building Inspection staff to determine whether the permit should have triggered neighborhood notification and whether any required notices were given.
Neighbors led by Natalia Spell told the Board they discovered unexpected foundation work and significant excavation after the permit was issued in October 2015. "Something like, you notice our house starts sinking on the side of the neighbor and the nails pop up from the walls," Spell said, arguing they had no reason to appeal within the 15‑day window because they did not foresee such excavation and foundation work.
Permit holders Yola and Bora Osterg said their permits were plan‑checked and that they submitted geotechnical reports, concrete tests and surveys; they urged the Board to deny the jurisdiction request. The Ostergs said inspectors visited repeatedly and issued reports that work followed standards.
Planning Department staff (Scott Sanchez) told the Board that the permit as issued appears to include more than 75 percent interior wall removal in the plans and that section 311 neighborhood notification may have been required; he said staff discovered discrepancies during review. DBI Senior Inspector Joe Duffy said his office had an inspection history on the permit but could not confirm whether any required adjacent‑neighbor notice had been sent without further review of plan documents.
Commissioners said the apparent ambiguity over whether notice was required — and whether it was given — warranted further investigation because it bears on whether the Board should accept jurisdiction now. Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to continue the item for one week (to April 27, 2016) so DBI can research whether notice was required and, if so, whether it was given. The motion carried 5–0.
DBI was asked to report back on whether notifications (Planning's 311 neighborhood notice or DBI adjacent‑neighbor notice and any California Civil Code requirements) were required and whether staff followed those procedures.
