Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for rear addition and stair penthouse at 1324–1326 Francisco Street
Summary
After neighbors raised concerns about shadows and privacy from an 8'9" stair penthouse and a 12‑foot rear extension, the Board of Appeals found the project code‑compliant and denied the appeal 5–0; the sponsor reduced the extension and agreed to seismic and sprinkler upgrades.
The Board of Appeals on May 15 denied an appeal by Edmund Kreiman against a permit authorizing a rear ground‑floor extension, interior renovations and an 8'‑9" stair penthouse at 1324–1326 Francisco Street, finding the project complies with planning and building standards.
Kreiman, who lives immediately east of the subject lot, said the stair penthouse and rooftop deck would cast two to three hours of afternoon shadow across his backyard and master bedroom, and that plan materials and pre‑application notices were confusing or inconsistent. "The documents are riddled with errors and are unable to serve their intended purpose," he said, asking the board to rescind or modify the permit.
Project sponsor Barbara Presta and her architects described outreach and multiple design concessions: the rear extension was reduced from 17 feet to 12 feet, louvers and reduced glazing were added elsewhere, the stair penthouse footprint was minimized, and the project includes seismic upgrades and full sprinklers. Neighbors immediately adjacent to the pop‑out supported the project, and Planning and DBI found the plans code‑compliant.
After considering shade studies and design alternatives, the board concluded impacts are modest and upheld the permit 5–0. Commissioners noted the sponsor's outreach, the housing benefit of adding a family‑sized unit and the public‑safety benefits of seismic and sprinkler upgrades.
What happens next: The sponsor may proceed with building permits; the board recorded that the appellants received repeated notices and had opportunities to request discretionary review.
