Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retaining Wall Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for 2350 Bridal but asks Planning to inspect contested retaining wall
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal challenging permits tied to retaining‑wall work at 2350 Bridal, finding insufficient evidence to overturn the permit on the record, but asked Planning to inspect whether earlier retaining‑wall approvals were appropriate and report back.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 12 denied an appeal by Pat Buskovich challenging work at 2350 Bridal and upheld the permit before it, while asking the Planning Department to visit the site to evaluate whether the earlier retaining‑wall permit complied with code.
Appellant Pat Buskovich argued that a cobblestone retaining wall on the neighboring property had been raised and that some sections now measure as much as 9–11 feet above adjacent grades; he said the retaining wall had been constructed without a permit in 2004 and that the current building permit sits on top of the possibly nonconforming wall. Buskovich asked the Board to direct Planning to inspect the site, compare topo maps and issue any necessary notice of violation.
Counsel for the permit holder, Alan Lowe of Nixon Peabody, countered that the permit before the Board (site permit 2010100082625) is separate from the retaining wall permit and that discretionary review had been settled previously. Planning Department zoning analyst Scott Sanchez explained that the department had reviewed topo maps and concluded the retaining wall appeared to align with mapped elevations and that, on the permit at issue, proposed stairs sit within the buildable area. Sanchez said Planning would be willing to make a site visit if the Board asked.
Following discussion, the Board agreed there was not sufficient evidence on the record to overturn the permit under appeal but asked Planning to perform a site inspection regarding the earlier retaining‑wall permit and report back. The motion to uphold the permit carried 3‑1. Commissioners expressed concern that while the Board’s immediate jurisdiction was limited to the appealed permit, Planning’s departmental enforcement tools (notice of violation, suspension or revocation) remained available if investigations found code violations.
The Board’s action preserves the existing issuance of the appealed permit while prompting a departmental inspection of the retaining wall matter.
