Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roof Deck Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for 557 Wisconsin roof deck over neighbors— privacy objections
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 13 denied an appeal by neighbors challenging a rooftop deck permit at 557 Wisconsin Street, finding the permit complied with planning code and DBI standards; commissioners urged neighbors to pursue negotiated mitigations.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-0 on Nov. 13 to deny an appeal of a roof-deck permit at 557 Wisconsin Street, rejecting neighbors— arguments that the 165-square-foot deck would unlawfully intrude on privacy, views and neighborhood character.
Appellants Shravani Sadineni and Manish Nairlikar said the proposed deck sits about 6 feet from their windows and doors and would create privacy and noise issues for adjacent units. "The proposed deck is about 6 feet away from, our windows and doors," Sadineni told the board. An uphill neighbor, Karen, showed photos she said illustrated line-of-sight into her bedroom and bathroom and described the project as "a huge violation of my home."
Permit holder Tiffany Tran and her design team said the lot is narrow (20 feet), contains an ADU and leaves little rear-yard space; they said the team chose a skylight-entry design and set the deck back six feet to reduce impacts. "We don't plan to have large social gatherings," Tran said, describing intended minimal use and expressing willingness to work with neighbors on screening and other mitigations.
City staff from Planning and DBI told the board the permit was appropriately reviewed and issued. Zoning Administrator Corey Teague said the project was "consistent with the planning code" and residential design guidelines; DBI staff described the approved railing as a horizontal-wire guard that must meet a 200-pound linear load and be at least 42 inches high and said alternatives such as opaque panels or planting could be explored within structural and code limits.
In deliberations commissioners emphasized the limited scope of the board—s review, the code-based standards that governed the permit, and the importance of neighborly negotiation. Vice President John Trina and other commissioners noted the board could not provide the relief sought because the permit complied with applicable rules. Commissioner Rick Swig moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued; the board voted 3-0 to uphold the permit.
The board closed the hearing and urged neighbors and permit holders to continue good-faith discussions about privacy screening and other mitigations; no changes to the permit were ordered by the board.
