San Francisco appeals board continues neighbor dispute over rooftop cover after fire-safety concerns

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 12 continued a dispute between neighbors over a roof placed over a light well at 40730 Fifth Avenue after the Department of Building Inspection said the roof does not meet fire‑separation requirements.

The board heard from the appellant, who said the existing opaque cover over a stairwell and light well casts a shadow into his apartments and asked the permit holder to replace the material with a clear cover. The permit holder, represented by architect Sam Quang, said the structure already existed and the owner sought to legalize it through a permit application. The Planning Department said the permit was reviewed and approved under the planning code.

The Department of Building Inspection contradicted that view. Joe Aspatel, DBI senior building inspector, told the board that aerial photos show a roof covering over the stairwell dating to 2002 but that work completed around 2012 extended the cover to the property line. "The construction to property line is not rated construction, which is required by the building code," Aspatel said, and recommended the permit holder either cut the roof back three feet for the required fire separation distance or submit a revision that provides a one‑hour fire rating for the construction.

The permit holder said the work was intended to legalize an existing condition and that changing the material now would be costly; he also said he believed the project was approved in good faith by city reviewers. The Planning Department’s zoning administrator, Corey Teague, told the board the permit was reviewed over the counter and that the project did not trigger neighborhood notification under planning rules.

Commissioners discussed options including revoking the permit, ordering the permit holder to reapply, or issuing a special/conditional revision to the existing permit. The board chose to continue the matter so the permit holder and DBI could meet and develop a code‑compliant solution. Commissioner Rick Swig moved to continue the matter; the motion carried 4–0. The board set the next hearing for March 19 and instructed the permit holder and DBI to communicate proposed options to the appellant in advance.

The board did not decide whether a clear (noncombustible) cover would be acceptable; DBI staff said most translucent plastics would not meet the fire‑rating requirements and that noncombustible options such as glass would likely be cost‑prohibitive. The board’s action keeps the issued permit in place for now while DBI and the permit holder work on a revision plan to meet California Building Code requirements.

The matter was continued to March 19 so the parties and DBI can produce a code‑compliance plan and cost estimates for the alternatives discussed.