[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6666876,"mediaKeyId","2303416-645edec1c135e01df45e5c0088326ad8","parentId",2303416,"title","Board denies appeal of Broderick Street rooftop-deck variance; screening required","audioSeconds",4449,"startMs",3663000,"endMs",8112000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2303416-645edec1c135e01df45e5c0088326ad8&start=3663&end=8112","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2303416-645edec1c135e01df45e5c0088326ad8/thumbnail_3663000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6666876/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-denies-appeal-of-Broderick-Street-rooftop-deck-variance-screening-required","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6666876-9c16f9b94146498964c8b4093b1f15e7/orig.mp4?Expires=1773488612&Signature=Flp1ut4EYDmMMoh1bHGKYbKYASorWEb-06k4cvh2F7cS~8aXXo8QUNtKW1tDE5KTFaihlV99G6ncj6CrZrPRY4yDMfMrtxxx0EKQC-4bQEBmPl~boLiD4zA8l6S41QKLsrsyiqwmkoEbHV9n3UZDwmPS65SfmaF4Qb79AevOPhEp-nXXLoWZznbFb5a6BZ1HTKcj0YEqVQekbUHSYb8Wg8qjKZrFL9H1xdI4MCwGtQjovNePL4uPtsECFjYVfUOpanfkioeRRE2x-UueVm-uaYV37W2~7NtOBeOY9cUoLom~0G7qQQtBWTeL4iHZpSZwaL1dHhcPrEf508hDCDtO6w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-02-12T00:00:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 12 denied an appeal of a zoning administrator decision that granted a variance for a second-level deck, rooftop deck and spiral stairs at 1708 Broderick Street. The zoning administrator had required privacy screening and a five-foot setback for the occupiable portion of the roof deck; the board found that the variance met the code's required findings and voted 4–0 to deny the appeal.

Why this matters: Neighbors had raised concerns about privacy, light and noise from the proposed rooftop deck, including requests for acoustical analysis and a fully opaque screen to block sight lines into bedrooms in nearby buildings. The board and planning staff said the submitted revisions — a higher guardrail and a six-foot privacy screen on the side facing the most-affected neighbors — were sufficient to meet the variance findings.

What was argued
Ryan Shork, the property owner and applicant, said the house’s small 20-by-60-foot lot and existing intrusions into the rear yard made additional usable outdoor space a practical need. \"We seek to create more meaningful outdoor space to enjoy our home for many years to come,\" Shork said.

Appellants — three nearby condominium owners represented at the hearing by Greg Day and others — argued the rooftop deck and lowered roof line would create privacy intrusions and increased noise into bedrooms situated 10 to 15 feet from the proposed deck. Appellant Greg Day said he opposed a rooftop at all or, if allowed, wanted stronger privacy and acoustic protections: \"No rooftop. And correct[ly], if it's approved to have the rooftop, then you have to solve through sound and privacy issues,\" he told the board.

Zoning administrator Corey Teague summarized the process: the applicant held pre-application and variance hearings and revised plans after neighbor meetings. Teague said the project met the five findings that variances require, noting the lot is unusually small and surrounded by larger buildings and that the additional privacy screening and the 5-foot occupiable setback addressed the most acute privacy issues. \"I issued the letter finding that the project met all the required findings for the variance. And I still stand by that,\" Teague said.

Public commenters from 1730 Broderick, including the building president, asked the board to require an acoustical study and to limit use (hours, number of people and amplified speakers), expressing safety concerns about open flames and barbecue ash near nearby windows.

Board action and conditions
Commissioner Jose Lopez moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the project's submitted revisions met the five required variance findings; the motion passed 4–0 (President Trezvino, Vice President JR Epler, Commissioner Rick Swig and Commissioner Lopez voting aye). The board denied the appeal but emphasized that the zoning administrator’s screening and setback conditions were central to the decision and that those conditions must be reflected in the permitting and enforcement record.

Follow-up and enforcement
Planning staff and the zoning administrator noted that the variance entitles the property owner to seek building permits, and that the plans submitted for permitting must be consistent with the variance decision. If the screening or other required elements are later removed or materially changed, the zoning administrator noted those changes could trigger a new review or require a new variance. Planning staff also reminded attendees that city noise ordinances apply to any future use of the rooftop.

Ending
The Board of Appeals denied the appeal and the applicant may proceed to the building-permit stage with plans that reflect the approved setback and privacy-screen conditions. Neighbors retain the right to raise enforcement issues if required screening or conditions are not implemented at the permitting stage.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Feb 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 12 denied an appeal of a zoning administrator decision that granted a variance for a second-level deck, rooftop deck and spiral stairs at 1708 Broderick Street.","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},6666881,"Board continues appeal over unpermitted roof cover after DBI flags fire-safety noncompliance",3253,583000,3836000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2303416-645edec1c135e01df45e5c0088326ad8&start=583&end=3836","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2303416-645edec1c135e01df45e5c0088326ad8/thumbnail_583000.jpg","/articles/6666881/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-continues-appeal-over-unpermitted-roof-cover-after-DBI-flags-fire-safety-noncompliance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6666881-0986bf7a6bdc3be9ca751c5d2e0fea90/orig.mp4?Expires=1773488612&Signature=XTG9M~nB2LhImFfuyKPtrvR6K4qHoYHifwsgq5IhtjynUUnYVtUatN~dq0HBMomIZC9KoFOXqgb0KQ2394EhWlcK9oZF2yhfL7aXE1TKYV8g0K5xHMBBu8OyhGDqxtqB8q9Gmnoyqq5bXVbPUJMkuvVgSNyjLGrEj~Yu5yfC1Kxdktx~XULUiP0PeOZqlwvYWoBFc9RZCF4n0JNpFYV1qbRAZpr9iBn~op-FaxW5AsahGUwODRxYekUyf~5yQ8cVj7hp56jflBWhGzEjeZrBtfaIzfp4pCeR6ZfhF5QKKIj7IMkkOTOdaOCW9UW2W5cyiGBb8rMO7FQElo4A71hSeg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","President Trezvino presided over a Feb. 12 hearing in which the Board of Appeals continued an appeal by Jonah Yee of a December 19, 2024 alteration permit that legalized a roof over an existing light well at 407 30 Fifth Avenue. The board directed the permit holder to work with the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) on corrective measures and continued the matter to March 19 so the parties can develop a compliance plan.

The appeal centers on Permit No. 202412116584 and Notice of Violation No. 2024429869 issued in late 2024. Yee told the board the roof produces a shadow that darkens rooms in his unit and asked that the permit be modified so the cover would be clear rather than opaque. The planning department and the permit holder said the work was intended to legalize an existing structure; DBI said the permit was issued in error because the roof was constructed to the property line without required fire-rating.

Why this matters: DBI told the board the structure as built lacks the fire separation required at the property line, creating a life-safety issue that the department said must be corrected. The board gave the permit holder time to pursue either a revision permit that adds fire-rating or to pull back the roof edge to meet separation distances, then report back on progress.

Details and testimony
Jonah Yee, the appellant, said the adjacent cover casts shadows into his dining nook and a usable room and requested a clear covering instead of the opaque material now in place. \"I just want a clear structure over it so that the light can come through and they can still get their cover,\" Yee told the board.

Architect Samuel (Sam) Kwong, representing the permit holder, said the structure was built earlier and the owner applied to legalize it after receiving a notice. \"We were legalizing an existing structure,\" Kwong said while presenting shadow studies that showed limited impact at many times of the year.

DBI plan-review senior building inspector Joe Aspatel (transcribed as Joe Ospatel/Aspatel) said aerial photos show a roof covering over the stairwell as early as 2002 and that the roof was extended to the property line around 2012. Aspatel told the board that construction to the property line must be fire-rated: \"The construction to property line is not rated construction which is required by the building code,\" he said, and recommended the permit holder submit a revision permit to either cut the roof back three feet or provide a one-hour fire rating.

Permit holder Linda Kwan, who testified in person, said she did not know a permit was required when the work was done in 2012 and that she followed the city's review and received approvals. \"I didn't know there's a permit required when I was 2012,\" she said. She told the board she would need time to cost and pursue either option recommended by DBI.

Board action and next steps
Commissioner Rick Swig moved and the board voted 4–0 to continue the appeal to March 19 so the permit holder and DBI can develop a compliance plan and report back. President Trezvino said the parties should communicate directly and that the permit holder should coordinate with DBI about whether to fire-rate the existing roof or to set it back three feet from the property line.

Items for follow-up
- DBI advised two corrective paths: (1) revise the existing permit and provide a one-hour fire rating, or (2) retract the roof edge three feet to provide fire separation. DBI said either option is acceptable but will impose additional cost on the permit holder.
- The board gave the permit holder a 360-day window (per DBI permitting timelines discussed) to complete the required work once a revision is submitted, but the board set a March 19 continuance so the parties can report preliminary plans and estimated timelines.

Ending
The Board of Appeals did not make a final determination on the permit at the Feb. 12 hearing. The matter is continued to March 19 for the permit holder and DBI to present a compliance plan to the board.","President Trezvino presided over a Feb. 12 hearing in which the Board of Appeals continued an appeal by Jonah Yee of a December 19, 2024 alteration permit that legalized a roof over an existing light well at 407 30 Fifth Avenue.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6666871,"Board of Appeals adopts two‑year departmental budget; commissioners urge prudence on surcharge reserves",0,8377000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2303416-645edec1c135e01df45e5c0088326ad8&start=8377&end=8377","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2303416-645edec1c135e01df45e5c0088326ad8/thumbnail_8377000.jpg","/articles/6666871/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-adopts-twoyear-departmental-budget-commissioners-urge-prudence-on-surcharge-reserves","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6666871-7c0d8fa7146431d6b0dfa24335f11db7/orig.mp4?Expires=1773488612&Signature=Q0rriL4gMHHSgW~obDwz7h8O80WMPdLL0loVd-yQdOn4AHgV-6eEeoCo2JfSueqmhi8dnGoMWyGhVcNUw9NcPHpap-gVyA7HxOO8oXVFfNjQ-DiCyQKEG0Tt9O8yk2rvanW-pxFyeyU8KAhqnl~HppLKMBjX0KClqKPSAqfSzImlmwdTay2OCIusHljRej04DYtXj6RzUY0VlSe8oGE-Uj-lDkNmkMNW3nGTOwuVG3kbltKTi6tGIxW9tLbIUtzBs5PdolnB64jB5mVSBvAYNMuffDSMp0uREtG5FozfBpdw6IEO023xK1g6evBLl07poHB4T6LmVWsP~WSsu21hgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 12 adopted its departmental budget for fiscal years 2026–27 after a presentation by Executive Director Julie Lamar outlining revenue sources, current-year performance and draft spending for the next two years. The board voted 4–0 to adopt the budget.

Why this matters: The board is funded almost entirely by surcharges on permits; Lamar told the board that \"surcharges make up 99% of our budget.\" Commissioners raised questions about how the city controller’s surcharge analysis should treat surpluses and reserves given year-to-year swings in permit and appeal volume.

What was presented
Julie Lamar, the board's executive director, summarized the budget: personnel costs account for about 66% of expenditures, services provided by other departments about 30%, and the remainder is nonpersonnel services such as interpreters, appeal-management software and SFGovTV expenses. Lamar reported that appeal volume has declined and that the board projects a revenue surplus in the current fiscal year (FY25) based on a six-month report.

Commissioners' concerns and guidance
Commissioner Rick Swig asked that the comptroller's office be urged to consider the board's historical volatility when conducting its surcharge analysis so that surcharges do not swing unpredictably with short-term permit-volume changes. \"We're building a budget based on surcharges and fees,\" Swig said; he asked the controller to set a reasonable reserve cap and treat any adjustments with the board’s long-term variability in mind.

Lamar said she is in discussions with the controller's and mayor's budget offices about deferred revenue, surplus treatment and appropriate buffer levels, and that the controller will perform an April surcharge analysis before any adjustments are finalized.

Board action
Commissioner Jose Lopez moved to adopt the departmental budget for FY26 and FY27; the motion carried 4–0 (Lopez, President Trezvino, Vice President JR Epler and Commissioner Rick Swig voting aye). The board directed staff to continue coordination with the controller’s office on surcharge analysis and reserve guidance.

Ending
The board adopted the two-year budget and asked staff to work with the comptroller to ensure surcharges and reserve policy reflect the board’s revenue volatility. The board also noted that fees (filing fees) have not changed since 2010 and that surcharge analysis occurs annually.","The San Francisco Board of Appeals adopted its departmental budget for fiscal years 2026–27 on Feb. 12, approving a plan that relies primarily on surcharge revenue. Commissioners stressed maintaining an appropriate reserve and asked the controller's office to account for permit-volume variability when setting surcharges.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board denies appeal of Broderick Street rooftop-deck variance; screening required

Board continues appeal over unpermitted roof cover after DBI flags fire-safety noncompliance

Board of Appeals adopts two‑year departmental budget; commissioners urge prudence on surcharge reserves