Commission approves project at 1301–1305 18th Street; denies discretionary review of rooftop penthouse
Loading...
Summary
Neighbors sought discretionary review of a proposal that includes a small rooftop penthouse to house laundry and mechanical equipment, arguing the structure is occupiable and should trigger building‑code upgrades; the commission declined to take discretionary review and approved the permit, directing plan notes that the roof be unoccupied for this permit.
San Francisco — A discretionary‑review appeal over a small rooftop structure at 1301–1305 18th Street ended June 30 with the Planning Commission deciding not to take discretionary review and approving the project as proposed, 7‑0.
Opponents, led by an attorney representing nearby neighbors, argued the rooftop structure is an occupiable amenity (a laundry room) and therefore a penthouse that should count as a story and trigger building‑code upgrades, including sprinkler and egress requirements. Architect and code reviewer witnesses said adding an occupiable story or a rooftop laundry as shown would trigger mandatory upgrades and that the proposal as designed raised code questions.
Project architect Sue Hale Chitar told the commission the rooftop penthouse is conceived as a small mechanical and laundry room. She said hallway corridors serving the upper apartments are exit passageways where code prohibits placing utilities and that existing rooftop plumbing and drainage make the roof a practical location for a compact laundry and future mechanical needs (including potential solar and battery infrastructure). The sponsor indicated it would accept a plan note that the roof remain unoccupied under this permit and that the building‑permit plan‑check process will address any code issues raised by the Department of Building Inspection.
Opponents urged the commission to grant discretionary review so the neighbors could press for alternative locations (hallway closets, ground‑floor space) or a smaller rooftop structure. Project opponents argued that hallway installations would be cheaper and more convenient for tenants; the sponsor countered that unit closet sizes and code constraints make in‑hallway laundry infeasible.
After hearing code arguments and the applicant’s willingness to add a plan note, the commission followed staff advice and declined to take discretionary review. The motion to approve the project with the public hearing closed and direct staff to memorialize the roof as unoccupied for this permit passed unanimously, 7‑0. The item leaves unresolved any plan‑check or building‑permit determinations that DBI will make in plan review and permit issuance.
