Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors win conditions on 1621 Diamond Street permit: surveys, monitoring and appeal path for any underpinning
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted an appeal by neighbors of a site permit for 1621 Diamond Street and issued the permit with conditions requiring pre‑ and post‑construction surveys, ongoing monitoring at the permit holder’s expense, and that any foundation changes requiring shoring or underpinning on the adjacent property be handled through a revision permit amenable to appeal.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on May 15 granted an appeal by homeowners next door to a renovation at 1621 Diamond Street and issued the site permit with conditions designed to protect the adjoining property's foundation. The board required pre‑ and post‑construction surveys, continuing monitoring during construction and a procedural safeguard: if future work would require shoring or underpinning of the appellant’s property line, that work must be processed via a revision permit rather than an addenda so it remains appealable.
Appellant Judd Winick, who lives at 1615 Diamond Street, told the board he and his wife bought a BMR (below‑market‑rate) unit and were concerned that excavation for the adjacent renovation would damage their shared foundation; they asked the board to require shoring drawings, third‑party review at the permit holder’s expense, and a pre‑construction survey. “All we are asking is that the city please ensure the safety of our home,” Winick said.
Counsel for the permit holder, Alan Murphy, said the project team reviewed plans and determined that shoring along the appellant’s property line would not be required because the proposed foundation bottom would remain above the neighbor’s foundation; he said the permit holder would provide surveys and ongoing monitoring at its expense and that engineering consultants and DBI plan checkers would review structural addenda.
DBI inspector Joe Duffy explained the distinction between a site permit and subsequent structural addenda and confirmed that structural plan check occurs at the addenda stage. Duffy and other staff said that if the permit holder later changed the foundation design in a way that required work affecting a neighbor, a revision permit (which is appealable) would be required. The board folded those assurances into the motion.
Commissioner Rachel Tanner moved to grant the appeal while issuing the permit with the listed conditions; Commissioners Anne Lazarus and President Rick Swigg recorded aye votes and the motion carried. The board’s action requires the permit holder to conduct and make available monitoring and surveys and preserves the neighbors’ right to appeal if the foundation plan changes in a way that could affect adjacent property.
