Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permit Egress Deck 2634 Octavia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Octavia Street stair/deck appeal for DBI site visit amid safety and privacy dispute
Summary
After arguments from the unit owner and the homeowners association about a deteriorating rear stair and a disputed third‑story deck, the Board of Appeals continued the appeal for a DBI site inspection and possible emergency‑permit advice; the board said reconstructing any deck would likely require a planning variance.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 17 continued an appeal over a building permit for 2634 Octavia Street after hearing competing claims about a badly deteriorated rear stairway and a disputed third‑story deck.
Attorney Steve Williams, representing appellant Patricia Cannon, said the top‑floor landing and stairs have existed for decades and that city records — including a 1951 permit and historic Sanborn maps from 1913 onward — show the stair and landing were part of the original building. Williams argued the permit issued Dec. 18, 2020, should be amended or withdrawn and asked the board to allow reconstruction in kind to preserve Unit 5—s historic access and exclusive easement.
Paul Garmonpre, president of the Octavia Street Homeowners Association, told the board the stair system is "really falling apart" and that contractors and engineers have advised that the structure is beyond repair, creating an imminent life‑safety risk. The HOA said it submitted revised plans that remove the label "illegal" from the permit application because the association could not conclusively determine the deck—s legal status but must address immediate safety concerns.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department described the regulatory tension: Department of Building Inspection (DBI) can allow replacement "in kind" for required means of egress without a variance in some cases, but replacement or reconstruction of a deck in the required rear yard would trigger Planning Code requirements and a variance. DBI—s Deputy Director Joe Duffy said DBI practices can allow emergency or limited permits to address life‑safety problems and urged a faster remedy than a full variance, which could take roughly six months.
Neighbors who called in to comment said they supported prompt repairs for safety but opposed reconstructing the deck because of close proximity, privacy and noise impacts.
After discussing options — issuing the permit now, denying the permit to force a variance, or authorizing emergency work — commissioners decided a short continuance would best balance safety and process. Commissioner Anne Lazarus moved to continue the matter so DBI could perform a site inspection and confer with an engineer; the board continued the case to March 3 and invited engineer documentation and DBI findings to inform whether an emergency permit is viable.
The board—s action does not decide whether the deck may be restored; commissioners emphasized that reconstruction of a deck within the required rear yard would likely require separate Planning review and neighborhood notice, while DBI can in some situations allow temporary or limited repairs to address imminent hazards.
The continuance was unanimous; each party will have three minutes at the continued hearing, and there will be a public comment period with no rebuttal.
