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

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.