Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues appeal of 486 Duncan roof‑deck permit so DBI and Planning can review alleged unpermitted reconstruction
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued an appeal of the roof‑deck permit at 486 Duncan Street to Dec. 9 after Planning and DBI flagged possible demolition and reconstruction of a noncompliant rear structure not shown on approved plans; DBI recommended re‑inspection and possible enforcement.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued, to Dec. 9, Appeal No. 20‑269 challenging the issuance of a permit for a new roof deck at 486 Duncan Street after Planning and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) raised concerns that portions of the rear structure were demolished and reconstructed in ways not reflected on approved plans.
Appellant Robin Joy said the proposed deck would look directly into her primary living spaces because of an unusual perpendicular lot alignment; she described the deck as an exceptional intrusion into privacy. Counsel Ryan Patterson argued the deck cannot be permitted where the structure below was rebuilt without proper permits.
Property owners Ashley and Karina Reese said they reduced the original deck size from roughly 180–185 square feet to about 99 square feet at Planning’s discretion and later to 95 square feet; they said they believed they followed required DBI inspections and planning approvals and offered to use nonpermanent privacy screening if the permit proceeds.
Planning’s Scott Sanchez told the board the lot lies in an RH‑2 district where the rear‑yard requirement is 45% of lot depth (about 51 feet 4 inches for this lot). Sanchez said the existing building currently encroaches approximately 7 feet 2 inches into the required rear yard and that approved plans do not show the framing work evident in recent photographs; he flagged that the reconstruction could require a variance or that the owners could submit revised, code‑compliant plans.
DBI Acting Chief Building Inspector Joseph Duffy summarized a permitting timeline (filed Oct. 23, 2019; issued Sept. 24, 2020; suspended Oct. 2020) and a prior notice of violation in Aug. 2019. He said photographs shown in the appeal packet suggest new framing not on approved plans and recommended DBI re‑inspect the site and review the full plan set before the board acts.
Multiple commissioners said a continuance would be appropriate so DBI and Planning can complete their inspections and the permit holders can decide whether to reconfigure the project or pursue a variance. Vice President Honda moved to continue the matter to Dec. 9; the motion passed 4–0.
DBI said any further action could include notice‑of‑violation enforcement and that resolving the permitting discrepancy might delay sale of the property; Planning said options include returning with a revised, code‑compliant envelope or pursuing a variance through the 3‑11 discretionary review process.
The board continued the matter to Dec. 9 and directed staff to coordinate inspections and departmental follow‑up.
