Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Roof Deck Permits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds permit process, denies jurisdiction request over Broderick Street roof deck

San Francisco Board of Appeals · August 20, 2014
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board denied a jurisdiction request from neighbors near 1125 Broderick Street, with Planning and DBI staff testifying that roof decks generally are not subject to Section 3.11 neighborhood-notification; the motion to deny passed 3-0.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 20 denied a jurisdictional rehearing request from neighbors near 1125 Broderick Street who said they were not notified about a roof-deck permit.

Requesters including Josh Krieger said construction began after the over-the-counter permit was issued on 04/29/2014 (Building Permit 201404183598) and that they had no practical opportunity to appeal. Krieger said his home is about 50 feet from the new roof deck and that the deck provides a clear view into nearby residences.

Permit holder Dave Cardinal said he had notified adjacent properties as required, met with neighbors after concerns were raised, and redesigned portions of the deck (glass railings) to address sight-line complaints. Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez and DBI's Joseph Duffy told the board that roof decks typically do not trigger neighborhood notification under Section 3.11 unless the work expands the building envelope (for example, adding a stair penthouse) or exceeds height/setback limits; they confirmed the deck at 1125 Broderick did not require broader notification.

After discussion, a motion to deny the jurisdiction request was made and carried on a 3-0 roll call.

The decision ends the requesters’ bid to reopen the permit on jurisdictional-notice grounds, though the board noted redesigned elements could still be subject to a later revision permit and appeal.