[{"_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",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_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":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6675424,"mediaKeyId","5153510-43852c49cc6084043aaa0f00330e214a","parentId",5153510,"title","Board of Appeals adopts two‑year departmental budget amid discussion of surcharge reserves","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",8383000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5153510-43852c49cc6084043aaa0f00330e214a&start=8383&end=8383","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5153510-43852c49cc6084043aaa0f00330e214a/thumbnail_8383000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6675424/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-adopts-twoyear-departmental-budget-amid-discussion-of-surcharge-reserves","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6675424-d80bb0b00bf8584e283f31d520964b05/orig.mp4?Expires=1773610414&Signature=Ycquf-UBJ0HCNiE6Y1timBtsOLpigRQjISoL99hpqbR~JDUyV89yoiDdA5W9BJMwHA6HvL30tikxcix4S~HxdBrdThEP0g97wOw4Epa9hbv~G7rQR-Npvc~P~~Czl-uUQ9EimaaIZGlBJeds4pHND1QWyLTvWAETPiRfGchS-1FeTleK9OCpUWG8dS-tNhXqQvzAhKtBOmcsAd8JRfGog0H4SiSf4dFuhPQYBq-MY2s2saHZTs69SxECtxWia-vRSUXZ94d21ZID1Y6xcViX1kwfXFDuEDDcsS-pyeyd-4ThGosTLqe1oNnM2tOgZdcVpqqyoaYjblUUBaN64VUkfw__&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 adopted its departmental budget for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 after a staff presentation and discussion about surcharge revenue, reserve levels and the role of the controller’s office in adjusting rates.

Executive Director Julie Lamar presented the board’s budget overview, saying surcharge revenue — collected on new and renewed permits — accounts for roughly 99% of the board’s revenue while filing fees contribute about 1%. Lamar told commissioners that the board’s expenditures are primarily personnel (about 66%) and interdepartmental services (about 30%), including legal counsel, broadcast services and information‑technology costs.

Lamar said the board’s projected FY25 revenue and a six‑month report show a surplus driven by lower appeal volume in recent years; the board’s expected appeal volume in FY25 was 55% below the 10‑year historical average, she said, citing factors such as changes in statewide law and the overall volume of permitting. Commissioners discussed how to treat a rising surplus. Commissioner Rick Swig urged the board and staff to ask the controller’s office to establish a target reserve — a cap for accumulated surplus used to buffer year‑to‑year fluctuations — rather than allowing ad hoc surcharge adjustments. \"We should set a guideline as to not to exceed reserve, because reserves are there for the ebbs and flows of volumes of activity to our board,\" Swig said.

Lamar said she was already in discussions with the Controller’s Office and the Mayor’s Budget Office and recommended the comptroller perform a surcharge analysis in April; the controller will determine whether surcharges should be adjusted to cover projected expenditures. Planning and board staff also noted that filing fees have not changed since 2010.

After discussion, Commissioner Swig moved to adopt the departmental budget for FY26–27. The motion passed 4–0 (Lopez, Trezwina, Epler and Swig voting aye). The board’s adopted budget will be subject to the controller’s surcharge analysis in April and to the usual permitting‑to‑permit fee adjustments during the two‑year cycle.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Jul 04, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The San Francisco Board of Appeals adopted its FY26–27 departmental budget after staff presented revenue and expenditure projections and commissioners discussed surcharge adjustments, reserves and the controller’s role in setting surcharges.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6675427,"Board of Appeals denies variance appeal for Broderick Street rooftop deck after planners require privacy screening",4782,3661000,8443000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5153510-43852c49cc6084043aaa0f00330e214a&start=3661&end=8443","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5153510-43852c49cc6084043aaa0f00330e214a/thumbnail_3661000.jpg","/articles/6675427/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-of-Appeals-denies-variance-appeal-for-Broderick-Street-rooftop-deck-after-planners-require-privacy-screening","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6675427-d762cb807f4da23654ab13a8c0f7c48f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773610414&Signature=F5zjgKi7WDy4sPJFIQuLu7IWPCGjCgQ~bWFjckrGE9RhmIF29h~V6Pv8P2PsjyXlMKfKjl5izRJ9C5ycVBct3Fo3Sa6z~ILuxMuzng4K296keilUVAjy-8vxtcezHXdYK2lWUvTj0l63jyb4En9UN9j3sqL~ZpX5b0mWwFHVfiMLbJXWvUosZ2DybOAj2llu2jz2e4xq4V9jD~YRDSbj-X4G~J-eHdFLa1Vj~rIu3Nlfc8ZDXlo99fi3YcuuNZki0CEeYi2kPBiIRRgay5cUUYA0mOImIhtVwbQiTlvxn0d7r2QV3uNjGCcLh2HpQEnN~s4clXgt2UbMATenVo6DEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 12 denied an appeal of a variance that would allow a second‑level rear deck, a rooftop deck and a spiral stair at 1708 Broderick Street, a narrow lot where neighbors raised privacy and noise concerns.

The property owner, Ryan Shork, and architect Charles (surname provided in hearing) argued the project creates usable outdoor space on a 20‑by‑60‑foot lot and that revisions made after community meetings — including a 5‑foot setback for the occupiable roof area and 6‑foot privacy screens — addressed neighbor concerns. Zoning administrator Corey Teague told the board the applicant held pre‑application and neighborhood meetings and revised plans to respond to comments.

Neighbors and condo owners in nearby buildings, including representatives of the 1730 Broderick homeowners association, urged the board to uphold the appeal, citing potential direct sight lines into bedrooms, amplified noise from rooftop use and safety concerns from barbecues or fire pits. Valerie Avril, president of the 1730 Broderick HOA, said she received notice late in the process and asked for an acoustical study and stricter limits on use. \"The current plan offers 0 protection from noise pollution, direct line of sight, [and] light pollution,\" Avril said.

The zoning administrator and the project team said they had revised designs, pulled the second‑level deck back 3 feet from the property line, increased the perimeter guardrail height from a typical 3.5 feet to 4 feet, and added a Corten‑steel slatted privacy screen angled to permit light while increasing privacy. Teague said the roof deck occupies no more than one‑third of the roof area and the nearest primary windows raised as concerns are located in a light well rather than directly adjacent primary bedrooms.

Board members debated the standard for a variance and the board’s de novo review authority, and commissioners asked whether changes at the permit stage could be treated as minor adjustments or would require fresh findings. City attorney guidance explained the board must make the same five findings that a zoning administrator would make for a variance.

After deliberation, Commissioner Jose Lopez moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the variance findings were met with the project’s revisions and conditions; the motion passed 4–0. The zoning administrator’s variance stands, and the project will proceed to the building permit phase, where plans may be subject to further review and conditions; the board and planning staff noted that future changes to the screening or deck could trigger requirements for new approvals.","The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of a zoning administrator’s variance for a rooftop and rear deck at 1708 Broderick Street, rejecting neighbors’ privacy and noise objections after the applicant added 6‑foot privacy screens and a five‑foot setback for the occupiable deck.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6675430,"San Francisco appeals board continues neighbor dispute over rooftop cover after fire-safety concerns",3510,622000,4132000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5153510-43852c49cc6084043aaa0f00330e214a&start=622&end=4132","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5153510-43852c49cc6084043aaa0f00330e214a/thumbnail_622000.jpg","/articles/6675430/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/San-Francisco-appeals-board-continues-neighbor-dispute-over-rooftop-cover-after-fire-safety-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6675430-2d98b978bf5fa6001937eb2542f956b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1773610414&Signature=SeOwlLKO0WSVDAB5SlFezpuwB-jN3Ir2bAeOIqV-d~5DgNUKU67MCE~V~dGK5sGX-X620CoKUVHQG-zHJlM1v~RkgYf-mPK99aFd9eeabdzuaXOUcxKPD94GhHj6shBjuNMO0MN9L3zyTEamfR9XjjPgS9ip7cabAVfPLmfJ0KUUpZzmtPNooeiRZcOcjpfBVzTQw-5seQikw1lKHpyOOsSX13TvZenOnCf2eSpXgsIuOcxsIACZvGFe8-meodqvN81rkxoguqKNIa4zV7hlHk452EbG9LwgBw8IO0RTbEHUICWZy61quDV7rrRPIiyXJ8kVgdt~U-cCsypoWMR6ug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 12 continued a dispute between neighbors over a roof placed over a light well at 40730 Fifth Avenue after the Department of Building Inspection said the roof does not meet fire‑separation requirements.

The board heard from the appellant, who said the existing opaque cover over a stairwell and light well casts a shadow into his apartments and asked the permit holder to replace the material with a clear cover. The permit holder, represented by architect Sam Quang, said the structure already existed and the owner sought to legalize it through a permit application. The Planning Department said the permit was reviewed and approved under the planning code.

The Department of Building Inspection contradicted that view. Joe Aspatel, DBI senior building inspector, told the board that aerial photos show a roof covering over the stairwell dating to 2002 but that work completed around 2012 extended the cover to the property line. \"The construction to property line is not rated construction, which is required by the building code,\" Aspatel said, and recommended the permit holder either cut the roof back three feet for the required fire separation distance or submit a revision that provides a one‑hour fire rating for the construction.

The permit holder said the work was intended to legalize an existing condition and that changing the material now would be costly; he also said he believed the project was approved in good faith by city reviewers. The Planning Department’s zoning administrator, Corey Teague, told the board the permit was reviewed over the counter and that the project did not trigger neighborhood notification under planning rules.

Commissioners discussed options including revoking the permit, ordering the permit holder to reapply, or issuing a special/conditional revision to the existing permit. The board chose to continue the matter so the permit holder and DBI could meet and develop a code‑compliant solution. Commissioner Rick Swig moved to continue the matter; the motion carried 4–0. The board set the next hearing for March 19 and instructed the permit holder and DBI to communicate proposed options to the appellant in advance.

The board did not decide whether a clear (noncombustible) cover would be acceptable; DBI staff said most translucent plastics would not meet the fire‑rating requirements and that noncombustible options such as glass would likely be cost‑prohibitive. The board’s action keeps the issued permit in place for now while DBI and the permit holder work on a revision plan to meet California Building Code requirements.

The matter was continued to March 19 so the parties and DBI can produce a code‑compliance plan and cost estimates for the alternatives discussed.","The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued an appeal over a permit to legalize a roof covering over a light well at 40730 Fifth Avenue, directing the permit holder to work with the Department of Building Inspection to make the structure code‑compliant and returning the matter to the board on March 19.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board of Appeals adopts two‑year departmental budget amid discussion of surcharge reserves

Board of Appeals denies variance appeal for Broderick Street rooftop deck after planners require privacy screening

San Francisco appeals board continues neighbor dispute over rooftop cover after fire-safety concerns