Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals grants neighbor demands, trims roof deck at 466 Elizabeth to 276 sq ft and requires glass railings
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals granted an appeal by neighbors and required the 466 Elizabeth roof deck be revised to 276 square feet with glass railings on all sides and full front/side elevations on resubmission; the decision passed 4–0 after planning and DBI confirmed the permit could be revised to those conditions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Oct. 29 granted an appeal by neighbors challenging a roof‑deck permit for 466 Elizabeth Street and conditioned the permit on a reduction to 276 square feet and installation of glass railings on all sides.
Appellant Gabe Volk told the board the project had morphed from an “alteration of a classic Edwardian 2‑flat” into what he described as a de‑facto demolition and a larger single residence, and raised a key discrepancy: “the record now contains 2 conflicting plan sets for the same roof deck,” he said, noting an April plan showing 496 square feet and a July revision showing 276. Volk asked the board to “revoke this roof deck permit in its entirety.”
Owner Vijay Malik and project representatives said the deck had been intentionally reduced during review and would be a private amenity accessed only from a primary bedroom. Malik said the framing and temporary plywood are not the final condition and that the finished perimeter “will have a glass as approved, and it’ll have a transparent glass guide rails.” Planning zoning administrator Corey Teague explained the project’s earlier history, including a conditional‑use authorization for building massing that is not itself appealable, and said the specific deck permit in front of the board referenced a 496‑square‑foot deck in the department’s file but that the permit holder had submitted a smaller plan set as an exhibit.
Department of Building Inspection senior inspector Joseph Ospital told commissioners the permit, as issued, met California and San Francisco building code requirements and recommended upholding it, but he also confirmed that deviations from approved plans (for example replacing glass with a solid pony wall) would be caught during field inspection and corrected.
After questions from commissioners and exchanges among the parties, Commissioner Rick Swig moved to grant the appeal as a special‑conditions permit: the board will issue the permit only after the project sponsor files revised plans limiting the deck to 276 square feet, providing full front and side elevations, and showing glass railings on all sides consistent with Exhibit 1 in the permit holder’s brief. On that motion Vice President Jose Lopez, President John Trezvino and Commissioner Rebecca Saroyan voted aye; the motion carried 4–0.
The board directed that the revised plans be submitted as a special conditions permit and noted that field inspectors will enforce compliance with the approved elevations and railings. The board’s action applies only to the deck permit before it; Planning and DBI reiterated that the larger conditional‑use authorization governing the project’s massing is not before the board and remains implemented per prior approvals.
The parties agreed to follow up with city staff about next steps for submitting the revised plans and scheduling field inspections.
