Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board conditions variance at 1948 Pacific Avenue with privacy screening after neighbor appeal
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted an appeal and conditioned a variance for a two‑story rear addition at 1948 Pacific Ave to include screening along stairs and deck to protect the privacy of a neighboring resident; the motion passed 5–0 and included a dated, initialed drawing to be part of the decision.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted unanimously on Oct. 19, 2016, to grant an appeal by Marilyn Wiley and to condition a rear‑yard variance for a proposed two‑story horizontal addition at 1948 Pacific Avenue to protect the appellant’s privacy.
Appellant counsel Greg Reichen told the board the remaining dispute with the permit holder centered on exterior stairs from the second‑floor deck that would afford views into Ms. Wiley’s bedrooms. Reichen asked the board either to eliminate the stairs or to require a fix that protected privacy.
Permit representative John Kevlin described site cleanup and outreach undertaken by the project team and said screening — frosted glass and planted green screening — could address privacy concerns. Planning staff explained that if the board wanted to require screening it should be included as a specific condition in the variance decision so it would be enforceable.
The parties and staff negotiated screening heights tied to the construction drawing. The board accepted a compromise reflected on a marked drawing dated Oct. 19 (the parties crossed out a 5‑ft note and wrote in 6 ft for the first run of stairs, with initials) and specified screening across the depth of the deck and along the staircase. The board also noted standard planning conditions would remain part of the modified variance.
On the motion to grant the appeal and impose the screening as a condition, the board voted 5–0 to adopt the modified variance, consistent with the five findings required under Planning Code section 305(c).
The variance decision requires the permit holder to comply with the drawing and the screening heights as part of the variance terms; any subsequent building‑permit work must also meet planning and building standards.
Quote: "We will agree with the deck... The one thing we want to protect is our client's privacy," said Greg Reichen, counsel for the appellant.
Actions: The board granted the appeal and conditioned the variance, incorporating the parties' drawing showing frosted‑glass screening and a 6‑ft screen on the stair landing; the motion passed 5–0.
