Appeal denied for 120 Eastwood Drive; board finds supported deck replacement appropriate
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Appeals rejected neighbors’ request to revoke a permit that legalized and widened a deck at 120 Eastwood Drive, finding Planning and DBI reviews and structural rationale supported the revision; the vote was 5–0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by neighbors opposing a permit that legalized and widened a deck at 120 Eastwood Drive, voting 5–0 to uphold the permit.
Appellants Yvonne Simonson and Mike Rosati said the expanded deck doubles the original footprint, raises privacy and easement concerns and should be returned to its 1969 dimensions or be subject to a no‑subsequent‑build restriction. "We're requesting that the deck be returned to its original dimensions," Simonson said, citing inconsistent permit documents and a support beam in the rear yard that concerned neighbors.
Permit holder William Hoskins and structural engineer Albert Ruttia said the original cantilevered deck had deteriorated and the only practical safe repair required extending the deck to align with a load-bearing wall on the garage. "The purpose was to facilitate moving things like mattresses upstairs," Hoskins said, adding that structural repairs required a 4-foot-9-inch extension to place supports on a load-bearing wall. Ruttia told the board the previous back-span failed to meet standard cantilever ratios and that a supported solution avoided repeated structural failure.
Planning Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam explained the property’s zoning (RH1 / height-and-bulk district and potential historic resource) and confirmed the department conducted neighborhood notification because the deck exceeded 10 feet in height; no discretionary review was filed during the notice period. DBI staff reviewed the inspection history and NOVs and said the revision permit was filed after DBI found the earlier repair exceeded 50% replacement and a new permit with plans was required.
Board members said public safety and structural soundness weighed in favor of allowing the supported repair. After discussion, Vice President Anne Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit; the motion passed 5–0.
The decision leaves the revision permit in force; DBI emphasized that a final inspection will verify work conforms to the approved plans, and neighbors may file complaints if they identify unpermitted work going forward.
