Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Hyde Street variance for fire-safety parapet, denies neighbor appeal 4-0
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by a neighbor challenging a variance to raise and fire-rate a parapet at 2666 Hyde Street, concluding planning and DBI determined the deck is legal and the variance meets required findings; the board voted 4-0 to uphold the variance.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 4-0 vote upheld a zoning administrator's variance allowing work at 2666 Hyde Street to rebuild and infill a portion of a rear parapet to meet Department of Building Inspection (DBI) life-safety requirements.
The appeal was filed by neighbors who alleged multiple unpermitted changes at the property and argued the variance should be revoked. In opening remarks the appellant asked the board to "revoke ZA's decision" and said planning had not provided required 3.11 notice and that outstanding Notice of Violation items remained unresolved.
Determination holder John Walker and counsel Dean Martelli told the board the variance is limited in scope and is intended to comply with DBI's plan-check requirement to provide a fire-rated parapet. Martelli said "this variance is necessary to comply with a specific life safety directive from the building department" and described a long administrative review and historic evidence supporting the deck's long-standing presence.
Planning Department staff Scott Sanchez said his research of historic aerial photos and permit records shows the rear deck is legal and that the current variance is narrowly focused to make the railing solid and fire rated where it is within about three feet of the property line. He told commissioners the department's records and aerial evidence support that the deck is a long-standing feature on the lot.
DBI Inspector Joe Duffy noted that if the variance were denied and the owner could not obtain a permit, the likely consequence would be removal of the deck to comply with current code: "If you can't get the variance, you can't get the permit, you know, so it probably would have to be demolished," Duffy said.
Appellant testimony recited alleged prior violations and described concerns about privacy, light, and nonconforming upper-deck work. The board heard brief public comment including a speaker who described prior enforcement history relating to the appellant's household.
After asking questions and hearing rebuttal, commissioners concluded the variance met the five findings required under Planning Code Section 305C, agreed that Planning and DBI had conducted a substantial review, and found no legal basis to overturn the zoning administrator's decision. Commissioner Swigg moved to deny the appeal; the motion carried 4-0 (Commissioners Santacana, President Lazarus and Vice President Honda voted aye). The variance stands.
