Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Geotechnical Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Denies Jurisdiction Request, Upholds Permits for 2508 Nineteenth with Geotechnical Conditions
Summary
After testimony about prior foundation damage to a neighboring home, the Board denied a jurisdiction request and upheld two permits related to 2508 Nineteenth Avenue but imposed two conditions: the permit holder must provide the final construction permit set to the appellant and must maintain an agreed 24-inch separation between the bottom of the new footing and the bottom of the installed underpinning; votes were unanimous.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 8 denied a jurisdiction request and upheld two related permits for construction at 2508 Nineteenth Avenue, but attached two conditions meant to protect an adjacent property owner who reported prior undermining and foundation damage.
Appellant Eva Tang recounted a history of damage to her home dating to 2005, saying she had spent more than $200,000 in repairs and related costs after earlier nearby work undermined her foundation: "Since 02/2005, ... I have spent, including construction, professional and legal expense, over $200,000 because of its wrongdoing," Tang told the board and asked that her engineer be allowed to review revised construction drawings before work proceeds.
Geotechnical and structural experts testified about required geotechnical reports and underpinning embedment. Structural engineer Pat Buskovich told the board that the code requires a geotechnical engineer for new buildings and urged compliance to address underpinning and excavation risks. "The code requires a geotechnical engineer whenever you build the building. It's a requirement," Buskovich said.
The permit holder's agent, Javier Solosano, told the board parties had met in the field and that the permit set was labeled to show the required 24-inch separation in a section; he said the permit holder would not pour concrete without the geotechnical engineer's approval. DBI staff agreed to verify whether a new soils report or closure letter was required for the foundation revision and to enforce conditions.
The board denied the jurisdiction request (item 7) and then voted to uphold the permits (items 8A and 8B) with two conditions: (1) the final construction permit set must be provided to the appellant, and (2) the agreed-upon 24-inch separation between the bottom of the permit holder's footing and the bottom of the installed underpinning on the appellant's property must be maintained and enforced by DBI. Both motions passed unanimously. The board instructed DBI to manage technical compliance and any necessary special-conditions permitting.
