Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roof Deck And Plan Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals continues Octavia Street roof-deck appeal to allow plan revisions
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued an appeal over an alteration permit for 3255 Octavia Street to Oct. 10 after Planning and Building raised concerns about a 6-foot glass windscreen, concrete pavers that may be occupiable roof deck, and unclear ground-floor labeling; the permit holder agreed to revisions and to lower the windscreen.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 26 continued an appeal over an alteration permit for 3255 Octavia Street so city agencies and the permit holder could clarify whether parts of the proposed roof area are occupiable and whether required neighborhood notice was provided.
The dispute centered on a proposed roof deck and a surrounding 6-foot glass windscreen. Scott Sanchez, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told commissioners the windscreen height likely triggers the Planning Code's Section 3.11 neighborhood-notification requirement because it exceeds 4 feet; he also flagged concrete pavers and a 42-inch railing that, as drawn, looked like occupiable deck surface rather than maintenance-only surfacing. Sanchez said the department discovered a drafting inaccuracy showing an existing second stair that appears to be new and recommended plan clarifications.
Joe Duffy of the Department of Building Inspection said plan labels describing ground-floor areas as "common space" were vague in the building-code context and noted a gas line in a room identified as a "workshop," which raised questions about future uses. In response, permit-holder representative Eric Jacobs and owner Jeff Monashie said the paver areas are intended for potted plants and sculptures and not for regular occupation, and they agreed to consider lowering the windscreen to 4 feet and to mark paver areas as non-occupiable or provide restricted maintenance access.
Commissioners pressed the parties on enforceability. Several said a special-conditions permit could allow the owner to revise the windscreen from 6 to 4 feet without reissuing a full permit, while retaining the board's authority to require plan revisions. For clarity and to give Planning and DBI time to review revised drawings, Vice President Rick Swig moved to continue the matter to Oct. 10, with an instruction that revised plans be submitted ideally the Thursday before the hearing. The motion carried on the record as a 4-0 vote.
Because Planning and DBI flagged both technical plan-labeling issues and potential conflicts with draft roof-deck guidelines (setbacks and maximum deck area), the board asked the permit holder to return with corrected drawings and explicit notations that paver areas would be non-occupiable if that is the intended approach. The continuance is intended to allow departments to confirm compliance or to identify any further conditions the board should impose at the Oct. 10 hearing.
