Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board Upholds Permit for Rear Decks at 2529–2533 Post Street; Neighbor Raises Fire and Noise Concerns

San Francisco Board of Appeals · April 9, 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 of Appeals upheld an alteration permit for replacement decks at a three‑family building on Post Street, finding the project code‑compliant. Neighbors sought larger separation or additional fire protections; the board concluded the required code protections (one‑hour firewall) and prior discretionary approvals supported the permit.

The Board of Appeals on April 9 upheld a Department of Building Inspection permit to replace decks and a stair at 2529–2533 Post Street, rejecting an appeal from the adjacent property owner who said the new decks increase fire and security risks and would allow rooftop access.

The appellant, represented by architect Michael Robbins and homeowner Alice Lam, asked the board to require additional protections — a wider gap between decks, a higher firewall top or sprinklers — citing grilling and occupancy of the decks, maintenance concerns and the risk of noise and privacy intrusion. Robbins asked that the top firewall extend higher and include an 18‑inch horizontal extension and added sprinklering.

The permit holder’s architect and owner said the design replaces existing egress stairs and provides improved code compliance, and that a one‑hour firewall was proposed between properties. DBI and Planning staff noted the project had previously received a variance and a discretionary review; DBI indicated the proposed firewall and stair meet minimum code requirements and that sprinklering is not required in this retrofit context.

After discussing noise and proximity impacts, commissioners concluded the project met code and that the permit’s approach — including a one‑hour rated wall between the lots — was acceptable. The board upheld the permit by a 4–1 vote.