Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Deck Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco board orders site visit, continues appeal over 1666 Greenwich rooftop deck
Summary
The board continued an appeal over a rooftop-deck permit at 1666 Greenwich to Nov. 12 and ordered DBI and Planning to inspect and measure the structure to determine whether neighborhood-notification was required. The matter was continued after neighbors accused the owner of unpermitted work and planning defended the permit’s legal basis.
The board continued a contested appeal over a rooftop deck at 1666 Greenwich on a unanimous vote, directing the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and the Planning Department to re-inspect the site and report back by Nov. 12.
The dispute centers on whether a rooftop deck with solid redwood railings is an “unenclosed deck” exempt from planning code Section 3.11 neighborhood-notification and whether the combined deck platform and railing exceed the height threshold used to trigger notification. Planning senior planner Tina Tam told the board the change at issue was limited to railing material — from glass to solid wood — and said the department’s review of the file shows a 36-inch railing on plans and that, as a matter of long-standing interpretation, unenclosed decks of this type do not require Section 3.11 notice.
The appellant, Mister Forcier, sharply disputed that account. "This construction has been a cacophony of non compliance," he said, alleging repeated permit and procedure failures, that work occurred without proper plans and that the finished structure functions as a walled addition rather than an unenclosed deck. Forcier pressed that the built condition appears taller than the 40-foot district limit and that the project should have required neighborhood notice and closer scrutiny.
The permit holder’s representatives — counsel Tuyah Catalano and owner John Wicker — acknowledged early procedural mistakes but said the owner later submitted plans, obtained review by planning and DBI and relied on structural work by engineer Rodrigo Santos. "I apologize for the view obstruction for the appellant," Wicker said, and emphasized his willingness to address safety and compliance issues raised by the board.
DBI and Planning exchanged technical testimony on applicable thresholds. Planning pointed to the code exemption for parapets and railings up to 48 inches and noted that a 36-inch railing plus a 12-inch deck platform yields a combined 48 inches that can fall within the exemption used to determine notification requirements. DBI staff, including Chief Building Inspector Lawrence Kornfield, noted that building-code guard requirements (San Francisco Building Code section 10.13.2) generally call for 42-inch guards but include exceptions for some residential occupancies; he agreed to coordinate with planning on measurements at the site.
Board members expressed concern about two facts: whether the as-built condition matches the plans, and whether the combined platform/railing height as constructed exceeds the notification threshold. Several commissioners asked DBI and Planning to measure the top of the guardrail relative to the original parapet or curb so the board can determine whether Section 3.11 notice would have been required. Vice President Frank Fung moved to continue the matter so staff could make those measurements and report back; the motion passed unanimously.
What happens next: DBI and Planning will perform a site visit and measure the structure; the board will revisit the appeal on Nov. 12. If measurements show prior notice should have been required, commissioners indicated that could form a basis to find the zoning administrator erred in unsuspending the permit. If the structure is code-compliant as measured, the board will consider whether remaining discretionary concerns warrant overturning the zoning administrator’s decision.
