Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds addition permit for 9 Douglas Street with roof and plate-height limits

San Francisco Board of Appeals · May 14, 2008
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After neighbors urged lowering a proposed roofline, the Board of Appeals upheld the permit for an addition at 9 Douglas Street with conditions that set plate height at 8 feet and a maximum roof peak at 13 feet 4 inches; motion passed 4-0.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals upheld a permit for a residential addition at 9 Douglas Street but imposed conditions aimed at reducing the addition’s effect on neighboring properties.

Applicant Mitra Nathanson described a series of concessions she already made during review, saying she “voluntarily incorporated 6 of the 10 items” offered to neighbors and that prior design changes — including a reduced ceiling height and redesign of the roof — were intended to address impacts. Neighbors and neighborhood representatives urged a lower roofline; one neighbor said simply to “lower the roofline… down to the original roofline.”

Opposing counsel for the neighbors, Mr. Williams, argued the exterior height had not been reduced and that the plan included an interior story height that increased external volume: “If you look at the plans that I submitted, the height started out at 12 and a half feet… once the pyramid scheme was came up with it went to 14 and a half feet,” he said, warning of increased shadowing.

Commissioner Fung reviewed submitted drawings and the record and proposed a compromise: require an 8-foot plate height for the new floor and cap the roof peak at 13 feet 4 inches. Fung moved to uphold the permit subject to those conditions. The board voted 4–0 to approve the conditioned permit.

The decision blends planning‑department recommendations with a numerical condition intended to moderate the addition’s profile; the board noted many concessions already incorporated into approved plans. The permit remains approved with specific dimensional limits to reduce shadow and preserve neighbor sightlines.

Next step: The permit stands with the stated conditions; enforcement and compliance will be governed by the approved plans and any building permits.