Board upholds DBI permit to add firewall at 1934 Jefferson; neighbor sought larger setback

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 9 denied an appeal by the neighbor of a Department of Building Inspection permit to legalize a roof deck firewall at 1934 Jefferson Street, ruling the permit met applicable building and planning standards.

Neighboring property owner Otto Pazian and his counsel had urged the board to require the deck's stair landing and upper stair setback be moved back to a configuration they said had been originally agreed to and that would reduce trespass and life-safety concerns. "This is really a fire safety issue," attorney Laura Strazzo told the board, arguing the approved plans do not provide required fire separation and that the proposed firewall does not comply with the guidance her consultant cited.

Ambrose Wong, an architectural consultant for the appellant, described code thresholds for fire separation and said the proposal left a separation of "1 foot 7" where a larger clearance would be required in some scenarios. He also pointed to existing elements — a spiral stair and roof flues — that he said were not shown on the submitted drawings.

The permit holder, owner Jeff Drimmer, said he purchased the property after the work was completed and that DBI inspectors told him an earlier inspector had signed off incorrectly. "When we showed that to the inspector that wrote up the notice of violation, his response was, 'oh, sorry. That was our fault,'" Drimmer said, recounting his meetings with DBI staff. Drimmer said he followed DBI and planning direction to design and submit a rated parapet wall that would bring the roof deck into code compliance.

Planning and DBI staff reviewed the resubmitted plans. Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board the planning commission had considered the item during discretionary review and voted to approve the legalization package, concluding the firewall addition is the corrective action needed and that the deck otherwise does not conflict with planning standards. DBI senior building inspector Joseph Ospital told commissioners the submitted permit application "meets all applicable building code requirements" and that the proposed 30-inch parapet above the deck, combined with fall-protection railings, satisfies separation and fire-rating requirements for a rooftop situation.

After oral argument and testimony from both sides, the Board of Appeals voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. Commissioners said the departments had reviewed the technical code issues and that DBI and planning had authority to require a rated parapet wall rather than forcing a larger setback. The board noted the procedural history: the deck and stairs were built under prior ownership, the city issued a notice of violation in 2022, and the current owners have worked through DBI and planning review to produce corrected plans.

What happens next: With the appeal denied the permit may proceed and the owners can complete construction required by the notice of violation. Neighbors seeking further relief would need to pursue separate administrative or civil remedies; the board emphasized departments had examined code compliance and endorsed the corrective firewall design.

— End —