Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies jurisdiction request over rooftop work near Macondray Lane, 3-2
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied a request that it take jurisdiction over permits for 905 and 911 Union St., ruling 3-2 that the city’s permit process did not show the legal error the petitioner alleged. Neighbors had urged the board to reopen the matter, citing notice and view impacts.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 13 denied a request to take jurisdiction over permits for 905 and 911 Union Street, a contested roof-deck project visible from Macondray Lane, by a 3-2 vote. Petitioners and neighborhood groups argued the permit and subsequent certificates were issued without proper notice and that the as-built work differed from approved plans.
The request was framed by the jurisdiction requester, who said plans omitted two kitchens and that modifications created solid glass railings and other features visible from public rights of way. Neighbors, led by Tina Moylan of the Russian Hill Neighbors, said the project sits next to the Macondray Lane National Register Historic District and that neighborhood notice and planning review were skipped.
Planning Department staffer Scott Sanchez told the board his site visit found only limited public-view impacts from Macondray Lane and explained that roof decks typically do not trigger neighborhood notification under the Planning Code; he said DBI inspectors reported the work matched the approved plans. Permit holder Samantha Wellington said DBI has confirmed the work matches the permit and that movable furniture cited by the requester is exempt from plan requirements.
In deliberations, commissioners split over whether the timing of the jurisdiction request (filed Sept. 2, 2010) and the issuance of a certificate of final completion (CFC) on Sept. 9, 2010, raised sufficient procedural error to justify reopening a finalized permit. Commissioner Garcia and others cited discrepancies between withdrawn plan revisions and the built configuration as “red flags.” President Tanya Peterson, noting the board’s legal standard, said she did not find the record showed the level of city fault required to take jurisdiction.
The motion to deny jurisdiction carried 3-2. The board did not schedule additional proceedings on this item; any party seeking further action was reminded of rehearing and appeal rights.
