Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies jurisdiction request over 1844 Laguna Street after neighbors allege clandestine deck work
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals declined a jurisdiction request from Alfred and Patty Dobro over a rooftop‑deck permit at 1844 Laguna St., finding a revision permit is on appeal and that separate jurisdiction review would be redundant; the motion to grant jurisdiction failed on a 2–2 tie.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 26 considered a jurisdiction request from Alfred and Patty Dobro seeking review of Building Permit 201106017152 for work at 1844 Laguna Street, including a roof deck, two skylights and conversion of an attic to habitable space.
The Dobros told the board the deck was built “in a very deceitful manner” while they were on vacation and that the installed deck is 40 square feet larger than allowed by the original permit. The requesters asked the board to take jurisdiction so that the revision permit and the original permit could be heard together.
The permit holder’s representative said planning and a building inspector measured the project and found it compliant with planning standards; Scott Sanchez of the planning department told the board that both the original and revision permits were reviewed and that the revision permit was required because the scope had been exceeded. Sanchez said the revision permit is scheduled for hearing on Dec. 7 and that granting jurisdiction now would principally delay the matter rather than provide additional scrutiny.
Commissioners debated whether taking jurisdiction would be redundant or appropriate given allegations about how the deck was constructed. Commissioner Peterson moved to grant jurisdiction, but the board’s roll call produced two yes votes and two no votes; four votes are required to grant jurisdiction, so the request failed and the jurisdiction request was denied.
Because the revision permit remains on appeal, the Dobros may pursue the pending revision‑permit hearing in December, or otherwise seek remedies available under the department’s enforcement processes.
What happens next: the revision permit remains scheduled for a Dec. 7 hearing before the board; any enforcement penalties for exceeding a permit’s scope may be processed by the Department of Building Inspection.
