Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permit Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Molimo Drive permits after DBI and geotechnical testimony; appellant’s structural concerns dismissed
Summary
The Board denied two appeals of permits for 440 Molimo Drive after DBI and independent geotechnical and structural experts testified that the modest kitchen infill, rear deck legalization and retaining walls would not undermine neighboring foundations; DBI required epoxy repairs and geotech oversight for foundation cracks.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 28 denied two appeals of building permits for 440 Molimo Drive, concluding the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and qualified consultants had addressed structural and slope concerns raised by a neighboring resident.
Appellant Heba Solomon argued that foundation cracks and proposed retaining‑wall work threatened the structural integrity of her home and nearby mature trees. She presented photos and testimony from a structural consultant and asked for corrective action, access for inspection and reimbursement for private engineering costs she incurred. “I want the city to protect my home and my tree,” Solomon said.
The permit holders, Charmaine Curtis and Kurt McCullough, said the work is modest: a small kitchen expansion into a light well, legalizing a low‑level rear deck and installing retaining walls where a failing fence currently exists. They provided geotechnical and structural clearance and told the board the retaining walls and the interior spread footings for the kitchen addition are set far from the shared foundation line.
Craig Shields, the geotechnical engineer retained by the permit holder, told the board the interior spread footings for the kitchen foundation are located well away from the property line and would not undermine the neighbor’s foundation; he described conventional spread footings on competent soil and said no undermining is expected. Structural engineer Derek Rota echoed that the permitted scope would not affect the neighbor’s foundations.
DBI Senior Inspector Joe Duffy summarized departmental follow‑up after an earlier appeal: DBI inspected site conditions, assigned a senior engineer, required a geotechnical review and a subsequent revision that included special‑inspection requirements and an epoxy repair of two foundation cracks. Duffy said DBI issued a repair permit (Jan. 22, 2020) to fix two identified cracks with a two‑part epoxy system and added special inspections and geotech conformance letters to the permit record. DBI’s conclusion was that the currently appealed permits were properly issued and that required corrective and monitoring measures were in place.
After hearing testimony from the appellant, the permit holders, and DBI and consulting engineers, the board denied both appeals by voice votes recorded as 4–0. The first appeal (legalizing a lower‑level rear deck and building retaining walls) and the second appeal (infill of a south lightwell to expand the kitchen) were both upheld as properly issued permits.
What this means: DBI will proceed with permit oversight, special inspections and the previously issued repair permit addressing documented foundation cracks. The appellant retains any civil remedies for private damages but the building permits will remain in effect.
