Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Deck Permit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board Upholds Deck Permit at 1950 20th/Second Avenue; View Concerns Not Protected Under Code

San Francisco Board of Appeals · July 15, 2015
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board denied an appeal from Perry Brown challenging a rear-deck permit at 1950 (approx. 16×8 ft) and upheld the permit on July 15, 2015, after Planning and DBI said the project appears to comply with zoning and building rules; the board voted 4–0.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by Perry (Terry) Brown and upheld an over‑the‑counter building permit authorizing a new rear deck and staircase at 1950 (approx. 16 by 8 feet). The action followed testimony from Planning and DBI staff that the deck, as described in the permit, complies with the H‑1 zoning district and does not encroach on required rear-yard setbacks.

Appellant Perry Brown said the deck would block views and reduce his enjoyment of his property. Brown urged the board to require the deck be placed below the fence line. Supporters for the permit, including LaVon Chi speaking for property owners, told the board that immediate abutters support the work, that the deck fits within the lot and that no parties or disruptive activity are intended.

Scott Sanchez (Planning) told commissioners that under the planning code decks of this type are permitted without neighborhood notice if they are no higher than 10 feet above grade, and photos indicated the proposed deck appeared to be at or below that threshold. Joe Duffy (DBI) said the department processed the application as a standard over‑the‑counter permit with an estimated cost of $6,000 and expected typical code elements such as guardrail heights.

After brief deliberation the board concluded the deck is code‑compliant and voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit; the board noted that view protection is not a basis for denial under the applicable planning rules.