[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6510881,"mediaKeyId","5346078-627640046dc2e05104fae97639bf2c12","parentId",5346078,"title","Board upholds DBI permit to add firewall at 1934 Jefferson; neighbor sought larger setback","audioSeconds",3098,"startMs",7194000,"endMs",10292000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5346078-627640046dc2e05104fae97639bf2c12&start=7194&end=10292","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5346078-627640046dc2e05104fae97639bf2c12/thumbnail_7194000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6510881/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-upholds-DBI-permit-to-add-firewall-at-1934-Jefferson-neighbor-sought-larger-setback","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510881-6ec26d195c0ab5104a23948fcc5112ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448117&Signature=MgEbodwJc8M9mVlMbjh2NTxusGOtsWPxv46D03lE2hF6bne2~hNwDrcdLdLuwecV6dzbBqvMeibgTQMDYfcKhoU8LMb3WquaBaLy6XbvG2pkTxqJcPbWhwKVg5vBaAhJ8GYSdFFeF1j-605Tp01JA8xh4n~IrvdRzsEYfJI9jouomAjM4tLfhQrfVmBmExdv6lbAVrfO47MyHtYLJ9B20lgLPpyLlzVtWIrk7A5Qhg9BIG9q-maEOIHZvl5Gt5JddaeGKbkNuMK4QK8MWv-aynZOCnsIlMqMwU5zEUZEFu363URRK4z1AAkiPZqXIsLErHRthPgXA8WCGqOnpTLORg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-07-09T00:00:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 9 denied an appeal by the neighbor of a Department of Building Inspection permit to legalize a roof deck firewall at 1934 Jefferson Street, ruling the permit met applicable building and planning standards.

Neighboring property owner Otto Pazian and his counsel had urged the board to require the deck's stair landing and upper stair setback be moved back to a configuration they said had been originally agreed to and that would reduce trespass and life-safety concerns. \"This is really a fire safety issue,\" attorney Laura Strazzo told the board, arguing the approved plans do not provide required fire separation and that the proposed firewall does not comply with the guidance her consultant cited.

Ambrose Wong, an architectural consultant for the appellant, described code thresholds for fire separation and said the proposal left a separation of \"1 foot 7\" where a larger clearance would be required in some scenarios. He also pointed to existing elements — a spiral stair and roof flues — that he said were not shown on the submitted drawings.

The permit holder, owner Jeff Drimmer, said he purchased the property after the work was completed and that DBI inspectors told him an earlier inspector had signed off incorrectly. \"When we showed that to the inspector that wrote up the notice of violation, his response was, 'oh, sorry. That was our fault,'\" Drimmer said, recounting his meetings with DBI staff. Drimmer said he followed DBI and planning direction to design and submit a rated parapet wall that would bring the roof deck into code compliance.

Planning and DBI staff reviewed the resubmitted plans. Corey Teague, zoning administrator for the Planning Department, told the board the planning commission had considered the item during discretionary review and voted to approve the legalization package, concluding the firewall addition is the corrective action needed and that the deck otherwise does not conflict with planning standards. DBI senior building inspector Joseph Ospital told commissioners the submitted permit application \"meets all applicable building code requirements\" and that the proposed 30-inch parapet above the deck, combined with fall-protection railings, satisfies separation and fire-rating requirements for a rooftop situation.

After oral argument and testimony from both sides, the Board of Appeals voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. Commissioners said the departments had reviewed the technical code issues and that DBI and planning had authority to require a rated parapet wall rather than forcing a larger setback. The board noted the procedural history: the deck and stairs were built under prior ownership, the city issued a notice of violation in 2022, and the current owners have worked through DBI and planning review to produce corrected plans.

What happens next: With the appeal denied the permit may proceed and the owners can complete construction required by the notice of violation. Neighbors seeking further relief would need to pursue separate administrative or civil remedies; the board emphasized departments had examined code compliance and endorsed the corrective firewall design.

— End —","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Jul 09, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Appeals denied a neighbor's appeal of a building permit that legalizes a roof deck firewall at 1934 Jefferson Street, after DBI and planning concluded the submitted firewall plan meets code; neighbor sought a larger setback and other adjustments.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6510884,"Board of Appeals denies Palms HOA jurisdiction request over 555 Bryant sidewalk widening",6826,365000,7191000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5346078-627640046dc2e05104fae97639bf2c12&start=365&end=7191","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5346078-627640046dc2e05104fae97639bf2c12/thumbnail_365000.jpg","/articles/6510884/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-denies-Palms-HOA-jurisdiction-request-over-555-Bryant-sidewalk-widening","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510884-8f90c919ee37ce12be5c2a040363fed1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448117&Signature=o4n0nWSotYtAafe9f8Jdr6z0DrqQGKL-WZbzsy82ljyBvj2y0vN9Ar2kJXLGkktNbwig5RR3AfNpYeKslTYouSDvSR~8tP~VhUjrydomExlR5rKAy6ORRQYt4JZbO7NvVuLQBIuTHDHndL5ke20pLRqsUWKMUvfboqCdantwri~GG41Ugyzzg~cUdKPIbxz7Ost5Lu~gM2llaYqg9VyqlKoSBcKRpkS6xFbnDvCg0~x-LzaUS-~LAjX4GaQp~ZYGu~MXm8-MkrSNKj1u4BhrKuoWIF0PdoQ4d5aJIQeCe~g4cF0GYgbtsheH3wKCWnm5ASWsARCt1xJxavwg6S9IEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 9 denied a jurisdiction request from the Palms Homeowners Association seeking review of street and sidewalk work at 555 Bryant Street, saying city procedures were followed but urging SFMTA and Public Works to follow up with the HOA.

The Palms HOA told the board that the developer and the city did not give residents proper notice before widening the sidewalk on Wells Street, and that the work encroached on existing driveway access. \"City law requires public notification for street changes so any impacted property owner can be heard,\" the Palms HOA representative said, arguing the sidewalk change was buried in a sidewalk improvement permit rather than taking the usual SFMTA legislative path.

The issue matters to neighbors because the Palms said the widened sidewalk removed a parking lane that had previously allowed large vehicles and maintenance equipment to enter and exit the building garage. The HOA said construction was completed before they had an opportunity to appeal; the jurisdiction request alleges the city's permit process deprived residents of due process.

Developer and permit-holder representatives said the streetscape work was required by the city's Streetscape Design Advisory Team and the Better Streets policies and was incorporated into planning approvals. \"The first SDAT letter requested the sidewalk widening along the project's Wells Street frontage,\" attorney John Kevlin said, describing the requirement as a condition of entitlement. He told the board the project sponsor proceeded \"at risk\" to complete streetscape work so tenants could occupy the building. Kevlin also said planning and building records and prior public notices showed the streetscape design was part of the entitlement.

City staff described their roles and the interagency process. Norman Wong of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency said the contractor had occupied the parking strip on Welsh for construction staging \"for at least a few years\" and that the fenced area coincided with the new curb line. Public Works staff told the board the particular street-improvement permit (SIP) at issue does not itself require mailed public notice, and that sidewalk legislation to establish a new curb line will later go through SFMTA and the Board of Supervisors.

After hearing testimony, President John Trezvino said the jurisdiction question under Board of Appeals Rule 10(a) asks whether \"the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal.\" The board majority concluded the city's notice process, taken as a whole, met legal requirements and denied the jurisdiction request 3–1. The board's action did not approve or disapprove the street changes themselves; instead the board declined to take the appeal and left the next formal steps with SFMTA and the Board of Supervisors.

The board added a nonbinding recommendation that SFMTA and Public Works reach out to the Palms HOA and attempt to address access and maintenance concerns. SFMTA had paused scheduling of its public hearing on parking/curb-line legislation while this appeal was pending; the agency said it will resume its process and that the public hearing is the forum where parking removals and other restrictions are formally considered.

What happens next: SFMTA will hold a public hearing on parking changes associated with the new curb line and make a recommendation to its board; if approved there, the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors for sidewalk legislation. Public Works said it will include constructed street-improvement documentation in the legislative package. The board’s denial leaves those agency processes as the available route for neighbors to press for modifications or accommodations such as driveway or maintenance access changes.

Board action: The motion to deny the jurisdiction request carried 3–1. Commissioners Saroyan, Epler and Swig voted to deny; President Trezvino voted no. Commissioner Jose Lopez was absent.

Why it matters: The case highlights tensions between expedited housing approvals and neighborhood notice and access. Developers and city staff said the permit path allowed a large housing project to proceed and be occupied; neighbors said the process left them without a timely forum to contest a change that affects daily access and building maintenance.

— End —","The San Francisco Board of Appeals declined a Palms HOA request to take jurisdiction over a sidewalk/street-improvement permit for 555 Bryant Street, ruling city notice procedures satisfied; the board asked SFMTA and Public Works to follow up with the HOA.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board upholds DBI permit to add firewall at 1934 Jefferson; neighbor sought larger setback

Board of Appeals denies Palms HOA jurisdiction request over 555 Bryant sidewalk widening