Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seismic Retrofit 630a Ninth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds DBI seismic retrofit permit for 630A Ninth Avenue after neighbors’ objections
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of a voluntary seismic upgrade permit for a rear cottage at 630A Ninth Avenue, finding DBI issued the structural permit properly and that partitions removed during work were nonstructural; the board voted 4–0 to uphold the permit.
Get email alerts on the Seismic Retrofit 630a Ninth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 24, 2016, denied an appeal challenging a voluntary seismic retrofit permit for a rear cottage at 630A Ninth Avenue, concluding the structural permit was properly issued and that the disputed interior dividers were nonstructural.
Appellant Nancy Norton, who lives in the front building on the lot, said plans submitted to DBI did not reflect the true built condition of the rear cottage and that during construction partitions or walls were removed. She argued the department should have required additional review, including a geotechnical evaluation in some circumstances, and sought stricter adherence to code to protect neighboring properties and slopes.
Permit counsel and structural engineer Rodrigo Santos said the project is a voluntary seismic upgrade that strengthens the structure using plywood shear walls, anchorage to the foundation and localized structural steel where needed. Santos and permit counsel told the board DBI inspected the site in response to a complaint, concluded work was consistent with approved plans and closed the complaint. Planning staff and DBI testified the scope was interior structural work that did not trigger planning department review or neighborhood block‑book notification because the work did not create habitable rooms or expand the nonconforming footprint.
DBI Inspector Joe Duffy said special inspections and a geotechnical observation requirement would apply where appropriate, and that the department would monitor enforcement issues raised by neighbors. Vice President Fung moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit; the board voted 4–0 in favor of denying the appeal. The board directed staff to continue any enforcement or planning referrals outside the appeal record as appropriate.
