Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for extensive Vallejo Street excavation after technical testimony on grouting and shoring
Summary
After extended testimony from geotechnical and structural engineers, the Board of Appeals denied an appeal and upheld the permit for a large underground garage and elevator project at 2865 Vallejo Street, concluding DBI review and required special inspections addressed the technical concerns.
SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 19 voted 3–0 to deny an appeal of a permit for major underground excavation and a new elevator at 2865 Vallejo Street after hearing technical testimony about permeation grouting, shoring and monitoring.
Appellant Keith Doersch and his structural consultant told the Board the proposed tunneling, grouting and excavation occur close to his property and said the work presented "very complex and high‑risk" construction that merited heightened monitoring. Doersch’s engineer, Reinhard Lutke, testified that initial design materials were difficult to reconcile with shoring calculations and that some elements contained overstresses; he urged continuous observation and careful execution.
Counsel for the permit holder and a team of expert witnesses — including structural engineer Randy Collins and geotechnical engineer Lawrence Karp — described the industry practice of permeation grouting (injecting microfine cement into sand to stiffen soil), staged excavation (4‑foot increments with temporary bracing) and extensive special inspections. Collins said the work involves grouting to create a stable excavation surface followed by the construction of permanent concrete walls; Karp described historical use of grouting in San Francisco and said careful monitoring and spacing of injection points limited migration risk.
DBI staff said the plans had been reviewed and that 22 special inspections relate to the scope, including geotechnical and structural elements; DBI stressed it would not sign off on final approval until required certifications and special‑inspection letters were submitted.
After deliberation — including acknowledgment by commissioners that the work carries risk to nearby properties — the Board concluded the record did not show a permitting error and that DBI’s review and the proposed inspection regime were adequate. The Board denied the appeal and upheld the permit by unanimous vote.
What’s next: The project remains subject to the required special inspections and DBI certifications during construction; neighbors may pursue enforcement if monitoring shows noncompliance.
