Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and staff split over roof deck and third‑floor setback at Noe Valley project
Summary
At an informational session on a Noe Valley design‑review case, neighbors and an attorney argued that a newly shown rear roof deck and a 7‑foot setback violate the Commission’s March direction to align the third floor with adjacent buildings; staff said the action memo recorded 7 feet after the Commission gave no clear numeric direction and noted appeal rights remain.
At a San Francisco Planning Commission informational session, neighbors and the project architect clashed with planning staff over revisions to a previously reviewed design‑review project at 4024–4026 Sixth Street in Noe Valley.
Planning staff said the March hearing resulted in three directions: add a matching east‑side light well, try to avoid loss of on‑street parking, and pull the third floor back to align with adjacent buildings. The applicant’s revised plans include the matching light well, no change to parking, and a third‑floor rear cutback of roughly 7 feet replaced by a roof deck. Staff brought the package back for Commission guidance on whether the changes were consistent with the March decision.
Architect David Marlott told commissioners the revised project complies with the planning code and residential design guidelines and argued that many minor exterior features that are not visible off‑site are exempt from neighborhood notice.
Neighbors said the revisions undercut the Commission’s March instruction. Pierre Lo, an adjacent resident to the east, said the March minutes described aligning the third floor with adjacent properties and asked the Commission to require that alignment rather than accepting a stated 7‑foot pullback printed in a staff memo. He added that the rooftop deck “seems to us to be both a violation of the letter and the spirit of your decision.”
Ed Buzynski, the west adjacent neighbor, told the Commission he sees no evidence the promised pullback will appear in final plans and argued that adding new exterior elements after a DR decision denies neighbors noticed opportunity to review impacts. Sue Hester, attorney for objectors, criticized the practice of post‑DR additions such as roof decks and said expecting neighbors to pre‑anticipate every possible post‑DR revision at the hearing is unfair.
Planning counsel and staff explained the discrepancy over the numeric setback. Staff said the March direction to “align with the adjacent neighbors” was ambiguous because the two adjacent buildings are offset by about two feet: aligning with one neighbor would require a roughly 9‑foot cutback and aligning with the other about 7 feet. When staff asked a commissioner after the hearing, the answer reported back was that “7 was fine,” and the motion was recorded accordingly in the action memo.
Staff emphasized that decks that are "as‑of‑right" and not visible off‑site typically do not trigger neighborhood notice and that the DR requesters retain appeal rights to the Board of Appeals if the permit advances with a roof deck. Several commissioners said they generally supported staff’s approach, noting practical limits to requiring a new hearing for every post‑DR design refinement while also acknowledging neighbors’ privacy concerns.
Because the item was informational, the Commission took no formal motion. Commissioners directed that the issues raised in public comment be noted for staff and reiterated that appeals processes remain available to objectors.
The matter is expected to proceed through the building permit review process; neighbors retain the right to appeal elements they believe were not properly noticed.
