Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rooftop Deck topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rooftop deck appeal continued so owners and city staff can explore alternatives
Summary
Owners at 650 Second Street sought a stair penthouse and windscreens to create a child-safe rooftop deck. Planning said the building is nonconforming (73 ft in a 65-ft district) so standard height exemptions are limited; the board continued the item to Aug. 24 to let parties and staff discuss alternate approaches and required historic-review considerations.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 29 continued an appeal by Brett and Leslie Poffenbarger over a zoning administrator determination that limited permitted rooftop appurtenances at 650 Second Street.
Architect Steven Steff and owner-appellant Brett Poffenbarger asked for a small stair penthouse and windscreen to make a roof deck safe and accessible for their child. The appellants cited existing permit history and other terraces in the building’s permit record and suggested code sections allowing exemptions for stairs, elevators and windscreens would permit the proposed elements.
Planning Department staff and the zoning administrator explained the building is nonconforming: its existing roof top is approximately 73 feet in a district with a 65-foot height limit, which reduces the available height exemptions for rooftop appurtenances to the top two feet above the roofline. Planning staff noted that certain rooftop features and landscaping have limited scope under §2.60 but that a stair penthouse or large windscreen as proposed would exceed what is allowed on a nonconforming structure. Staff also noted the property’s historic status and that a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission may be necessary for some changes.
Board members expressed sympathy for the owners’ desire for safe outdoor space and asked the parties to discuss alternatives—such as different access strategies or limited windscreen/landscape solutions—and whether an elevator or other technical approach is feasible. The board continued the public hearing to Aug. 24 with no new submittals to allow staff and the applicants to confer and return with potential options; the motion to continue passed 4–0.
