Board upholds Chestnut Street site permit after neighbors raise light, structural and notice concerns

The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal of the site permit for 2652 Chestnut Street, finding the Planning Department’s neighborhood-notification process (commonly called a Section 3.11 notice) did not expire and the site permit was properly issued.

Neighbors said the project is larger and more intrusive than they were told in 2009 public meetings and raised objections about light and air, structural impacts on adjoining homes and whether promised neighbor accommodations were credible. Appellant Richard Wall and nearby residents said they had relied on verbal promises (skylights, window work, and retaining-wall repairs) and asked the board to hold the permit pending written agreements and review of structural/foundation engineering.

The owner, Ronald Sires, said plans went through neighborhood notification in 2009, planning approved the design and DBI had routed the permit for further review; he described earlier voluntary commitments to neighbors and said he would honor them. DBI noted that the active appealable item before the board was the site permit; other technical reviews (structural, mechanical) remained in plan check. Planning staff said the project was rechecked within three years and policy did not require a new 3.11 notice in this instance.

After a short recess for parties to confer, the owner provided written confirmations of some neighbor commitments and said retaining-wall work and window reimbursements would be addressed. The board ruled 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the site permit on the basis that the Section 3.11 notice had not expired and the permit was properly issued; commissioners noted voluntary neighbor agreements are enforceable privately but are not independently enforceable by the board absent a formal, conditioned settlement. The site-permit addendum and building-plan checks will proceed under DBI review.