Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals approves 2515 Broadway permit with required survey monitoring after neighbor appeals
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted appeals to require the 2515 Broadway permit holder to fund survey monitoring of adjacent properties and supply monitoring data to neighbors, resolving privacy and foundation concerns while allowing the project to proceed under conditions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Dec. 16 conditionally approved the site/alteration permit for 2515 Broadway, requiring the permit holder to fund independent survey monitoring of neighboring foundations and to share monitoring results with the appellants.
Neighbors Jerome Sewich, Holly Sewich and Frances Hochschild appealed the site permit granted in 2018, saying plans were incomplete, demolition calculations were unclear, and the project’s planned excavation and two‑story rear addition risked undermining foundations and privacy for adjacent historic houses. They asked for geotechnical and structural reports, monitoring, and assurances — including agreements to underp in or grout foundations if necessary.
Architect Jeffrey Eade and homeowners Behrouz and Armita Zahiri told the board the project had gone through Planning Commission review, that they reduced window counts after discretionary review, and that they have contracted Romig (geotechnical) and Semco (structural) to prepare the technical designs. Eade said demolition‑calculation tables were submitted in the record and that the project as reviewed by Planning was below the thresholds that would trigger a demolition application under Planning Code section 3.17.
Planning staff (Scott Sanchez) told commissioners that the application is an alteration, not a demolition under section 3.17, and that the planning commission had previously reduced windows to address privacy. Acting Chief Inspector Joseph Duffy (DBI) said DBI did not find the project to meet the code threshold for demolition and described monitoring and special inspection as common best practices for excavation and shoring.
After debate about which permit conditions are within the board’s authority (DBI and the city attorney advised that compelling a permit holder to pay for repairs on another property is a civil matter), Vice President Daryl Honda moved to grant the appeals and issue the permit with one explicit condition: the permit holder must pay for and implement industry-standard survey monitoring of both appellants’ foundations (reports to be provided to appellants), and the monitoring program should follow standard pre‑construction, during‑construction and post‑construction reporting cadence. The board approved the motion 5–0.
The board’s conditional approval keeps the project moving while establishing a technical safeguard intended to detect movement early and provide data to neighbors. DBI and the project team said they have agreed to provide structural and geotechnical designs and monitoring proposals and are willing to meet with neighbors to review findings and monitoring plans.
The board recorded that some items suggested by neighbors — for example, mandating who pays for underpinning or setting a specific civil settlement between neighbors — are outside the board’s usual permit conditions and better handled through private agreements or future civil arrangements. The permit was approved with the monitoring condition and the matter closed at the hearing; the board recorded that monitoring data must be shared on request with the appellants and that monitoring should follow customary industry practice.
