Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Neighbor Dispute Excavation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds DBI permit for 34 Madrone Ave despite neighbors' excavation and privacy concerns

San Francisco Board of Appeals · April 27, 2016
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Neighbors appealed a March 3, 2016 alteration permit for 34 Madrone Ave, citing soil instability, deep excavation and loss of egress; the board denied the appeal and upheld the permit 4–0 after DBI and Planning staff said required notifications and reviews had been completed.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 27 denied an appeal of an alteration permit for 34 Madrone Avenue, voting 4–0 to uphold the permit.

Appellant Mary Volkoff, who said she lives at 38 Madrone, pressed the board to deny the permit because she contended DBI did not fully investigate soil conditions and because the proposed basement excavation and patio retaining wall ‘‘will be very substantial — 20 feet wide by 5 to 6 feet deep’’ and could destabilize adjacent foundations and eliminate emergency egress for a northern basement bedroom. Neighbors raised related concerns about drainage, the potential for conversion to a secondary unit in an RH1 zone, and alleged irregularities in earlier demolition activity.

Permit holder Allison Curran and counsel Brett Gladstone told the board the downstairs remodeling and patio are intended to provide wheelchair accessibility for a family member, and they showed architectural sections and geotechnical material to staff. Gladstone said the project team would comply with Civil Code notification requirements and offered to use hand tools where work abuts the appellant’s property. DBI inspector Joe Duffy said DBI had performed plan check review and a site visit, confirmed that structural notification was sent, and described special inspections and waterproofing requirements that will be enforced. Planning staff Scott Sanchez said the proposed rooms comply with the department’s rooms matrix and would not be considered an illegal dwelling unit under RH1 rules.

Vice President Frank Fung moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued; Commissioners Lazarus, Honda and Wilson voted aye. The board recommended monitoring and start‑work inspections during construction to address neighbor concerns.