Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foundation Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DBI permit after neighbors complain of undermining and settlement
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal challenging foundation work and alleged undermining at 84040 Second Avenue, finding the revision permit was properly issued; DBI staff said the revision was required after a notice of violation and recommended engineering plans and negotiations between parties or insurance remedies.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 25 denied an appeal challenging foundation work at 84040 Second Avenue and upheld the revision permit (201907317435). Appellants complained of undermining, settlement and structural damage allegedly caused by adjacent foundation work; they urged the board to require repairs and said permits lacked proper foundation drawings.
Appellants described visible settlement and undermining: "Our soil was stolen. There's a big tunnel between both properties," one speaker said, and they reported interior cracking and settlement they feared would worsen with the rainy season. They asked the board to require corrective action and to ensure their property would be stabilized.
Permit holders and their representative said permits and signoffs had been obtained and that they were willing to fix damage; they said negotiations stalled when homeowners raised larger‑scope cost estimates and that the contractor turned the matter to insurance. Joe Duffy, DBI's senior building inspector, said the revision permit under appeal was issued as a required response to a notice of violation after DBI observed voids under the adjacent foundation during a July site inspection. Duffy explained DBI required an approved revision to document means, methods and sequencing for the foundation work.
DBI advised the homeowners to obtain an engineer's evaluation and plans to stabilize the property and noted the homeowners may pursue a court or insurance remedy for compensation. After deliberation, Commissioner Daryl Honda moved to deny the appeal on the grounds the permit had been properly issued; the board voted 3–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit.
DBI said it remains available to meet with engineers and the parties to facilitate a technical resolution, but it cannot compel homeowners to accept a specific contractor; the department also noted notices of violation are recorded and may appear on disclosures if a sale is attempted while litigation or repair remains unresolved.
