Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors, engineers disagree over structural safety at 737 Castro; board upholds permits
Summary
The board upheld permits connected to 737 Castro after competing engineering testimony and questions about temporary shoring, unresolved notices of violation, and whether the board or civil court should resolve responsibility for foundation repairs.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals upheld permits for work at 737 Castro Street after a lengthy hearing in which the appellant raised engineering concerns about an allegedly inadequate foundation and retaining wall.
Appellant Isaac Abrams told the board an independent review found that the foundation and retaining wall on the adjacent property were not constructed to withstand lateral loads and posed a collapse risk. He asked the board to revoke the permit so the property owner would have to reapply with appropriate engineering. "Because this foundation was not constructed to withstand lateral loads, it is likely to collapse," Abrams said.
The permit holders representatives, including the project engineer Mark Lonning and consultant Patrick Buskovich, countered that the design and temporary shoring meet code and that the permit expressly addresses the identified notices of violation. Lawrence Cornfield of the Department of Building Inspection told the board the permit under review appeared to address the NOVs and that district inspection and final sign-off procedures would compare built work to the approved plans.
Commissioners debated whether the boards permit review or the civil courts were the appropriate venue to settle responsibility for off-site repairs and payments. Several commissioners expressed concern about the scarcity of permit-holder briefing and documents in the board packet, while also noting the practical limits on the boards ability to resolve private civil claims.
The board ultimately voted to uphold the permits; commissioners recorded both support and reservations and asked building department staff to ensure outstanding structural issues are addressed before final sign-off. The decision means the permits stand but does not preclude civil litigation between neighbors over cost and responsibility.
