Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit 46120 Seventh topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds neighborhood concerns, conditions permit at 46120 Seventh Street
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted appeal 16‑153 by neighbors and conditioned the permit for 46120 Seventh Street: the board required removal of roof hatch/cap and roof access, a recorded notice prohibiting future rooftop stairs, and relocation of mechanical equipment to the rear yard to reduce massing and potential noise impacts.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted an appeal by neighbors of a building permit for 46120 Seventh Street (appeal 16‑153), imposing conditions intended to reduce rooftop massing and the risk of ongoing noise and privacy impacts.
Appellant Lisa Spiegel told the board the Planning Commission’s 2014 discretionary review had explicitly limited the project’s height and mass and prohibited a roof deck; she said the current permit legalizes rooftop mechanical units and a 4‑foot screening wall that, in her view, reintroduce the removed mass and place noisy equipment adjacent to neighbors’ bedroom windows. "The placement of the equipment is extraordinary and exceptional, close to the neighbors," Spiegel said, and asked the board to sustain the Planning Commission’s intent.
Permit-holder counsel Tom Tunney said the permit corrects work that had been performed without permits (internal stair and hatch) and that DBI and the zoning administrator approved the equipment location and screening as code‑compliant. Tunney’s team presented acoustical testing and told the board equipment centered on the roof could meet Police Code noise limits; he offered to remove a wooden cap and to move equipment toward the roof center or into the rear yard if required.
Neighbors including Carrie Lee and others told the board the rooftop condensers would be close to bedroom windows and likely to operate frequently, raising quality‑of‑life concerns and citing Police Code noise provisions. An acoustical critique submitted by neighbors’ experts questioned the permit-holder’s testing protocol and said tests did not consider multiple receptor heights and reflective conditions.
Planning Department staff confirmed the stair had been removed and that the permit legalizes work begun without permits, while DBI said from a building‑code standpoint the installed equipment met code but acknowledged enforcement resources had been spent to address the unauthorized work.
After deliberation, President Daryl Honda moved to grant the appeal subject to three conditions: (1) the hatch/cap must be permanently removed and the roof finished without an access point; (2) the permit holder must record a notice of special restrictions, in language agreed with the zoning administrator, prohibiting installation of a stair to the roof; and (3) the mechanical equipment must be relocated to the rear yard (or otherwise sited to eliminate the additional massing visible from the street). Commissioners Lazarus, Wilson and Swig voted 'Aye' and the motion passed. The board instructed staff to coordinate the exact language of the recorded restriction with the zoning administrator.
The decision requires the permit to be revised to reflect the conditions before finalization; the board emphasized enforcement and a recorded restriction to prevent a simple over‑the‑counter reinstallation of roof access.
