Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Relocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues contested 1100 Lombard permit to Oct. 26 as tenants and owner negotiate relocation terms
Summary
Three tenants appealed a permit for structural and garage work at 1100 Lombard, arguing statutory relocation payments are insufficient for long displacements; owners and engineers said the building needs immediate foundation and seismic work. The board continued the matter to Oct. 26 to allow settlement talks and encouraged negotiation on increased relocation compensation.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 12 continued an appeal over a permit for 1100 Lombard Street after a lengthy hearing in which tenants argued the scope of planned structural and garage work would force prolonged displacement and impose financial hardship.
Tenant representatives said statutory relocation payments for capital improvement evictions (about $8,500) would not cover months‑long displacement for retired tenants on fixed incomes. Tenant counsel outlined estimated shortfall figures for three months and for six months of displacement and urged the board to require measures to avoid long‑term relocations.
Owner representatives, contractors and structural engineers described the building as in urgent need of foundation and seismic repairs. Project engineer Arvin O’Neil and contractor Edward Mullins said the work includes extensive excavation (roughly 700 cubic yards), major cribbing/shoring to support the structure, replacement of failing brick foundations, and removal of hazardous materials where present. Contractors said such work is safer and faster if the building is vacated during construction; owners reported insurers had flagged risks of insuring an occupied, actively shored site.
Engineers and contractor witnesses disagreed with tenant counsel’s proposal to keep tenants in the building while rotating them into vacant units. Tenant counsel said tenants would accept phased relocation within the building if appropriate protections and compensation were provided. During the hearing, Commissioners suggested incentives to reach a settlement; Vice President Michael Garcia proposed doubling statutory relocation payments as a possible compromise. Parties reported an initial willingness to increase relocation reimbursement to a higher amount (parties discussed $17,000–$20,000 ranges) and asked for time to negotiate.
Given the technical complexity, disputed schedules and the potential financial impact on tenants, the board voted 4‑0 to continue the appeal to Oct. 26, 2011 to allow further settlement negotiations. Commissioners told parties a voluntary withdrawal of the appeal would allow the permit to issue immediately if they reach agreement beforehand.
