Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permit Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies neighbors’ bid to take jurisdiction over rooftop HVAC permit
Summary
The San Francisco City Board of Appeals on a 4–0 vote denied a jurisdiction request from neighbors who said they were not notified about a revised rooftop HVAC installation at 3622 Second Street, finding no procedural due-process violation and that the permit complies with setback and code requirements.
The San Francisco City Board of Appeals denied a jurisdiction request concerning a revised building permit for 3622 Second Street, rejecting neighbors’ claims they were not notified about an HVAC unit added to the roof. President Michael Garcia announced the vote: “The vote is 4 to 0, and the jurisdiction request is denied.”
Neighbors Karen Birmingham and David Twinheim told the board they did not see the revised plans and that a newly sited rooftop mechanical unit sits about six feet from their dining room windows and could cause noise, odor and visual impacts. “This change in plans is also outside the envelope of the building,” Birmingham said, describing the unit as “right in direct… it's so close to us.”
Attorney Brian Soriano, appearing for permit holder Douglas Durkin, told the board the same complaint was reviewed earlier by both the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Department and dismissed; he said the HVAC location appeared on revised drawings and the departments found no code violation. Planning and DBI staff — Chief Building Inspector Lawrence Kornfield and planner Tina Tam — said the unit meets setback requirements, that a parapet will screen it from public ways, and that rooftop equipment screening rules are more typical for commercial than single-family residential projects.
Several commissioners framed the decision as a process issue. Commissioners said they saw no due-process denial because the revision would likely have qualified for an over-the-counter permit in isolation and the departments had previously reviewed and dismissed the complaint. Vice President Frank Fung and others voiced reservations about the neighbor’s late appeal but agreed that the evidence did not justify taking jurisdiction now. The board denied the jurisdiction request 4–0 with one commissioner absent.
The board did not adopt additional conditions or remand the permit to the departments. The decision closes this appeal unless the appellants seek other remedies available under the city’s rules.
