Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Rooftop Deck topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies variance appeal for Broderick Street rooftop deck after planners require privacy screening
Summary
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.
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.
