Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for modest rear addition and roof deck at 1774 Grove Street
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal by a neighboring tenant who said a proposed 250 sq ft rear addition and 255 sq ft roof deck would reduce sunlight, airflow and privacy; after reviewing shadow studies and design details the board voted 4–0 to uphold the permit.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Jan. 23 upheld a planning department and building permit for a rear horizontal addition and roof deck at 1774 Grove Street, rejecting a tenant’s appeal over lost sunlight, air and privacy.
Tenant Kristen Lyons, who lives across the rear yard and fourth‑floor unit, told the board the proposed addition and deck would ‘‘greatly affect’’ direct natural sunlight, cross‑breezes and bedroom privacy. ‘‘With the proposed deck I will definitely have to keep my bedroom blinds closed the majority of every day,’’ Lyons said, describing how the deck would sit about 20 feet from her windows.
Architect Mark Topacher and homeowner Hiro Koizumi said the design is a modest, family‑oriented improvement: a 250‑square‑foot interior addition to house a bathroom and laundry and a 255‑square‑foot roof deck set back roughly 5 feet from the side property line. Topacher presented sun‑shadow studies for the winter solstice, equinox and summer to show the addition would cast limited additional shade that dissipates as the day progresses. Koizumi said the work would make the home more livable for his family, which includes a young child.
Planning Department staff supported the permit, noting the addition preserves setbacks, includes no new west‑facing windows toward the neighbor and provides usable open space. Commissioners asked for clarifications about the deck’s exact placement (about 21 feet from the neighbor’s wall), guardrail height (42 inches) and options for privacy screening or occupant window treatments to reduce perceived intrusion.
After questioning and a brief discussion about tradeoffs between privacy and light, the board found the project modest and the submitted shadow studies persuasive. Commissioner Fung moved to uphold the permit with no new conditions; the motion passed 4–0.
The board printed a four‑to‑zero vote — Commissioners Fung, Garcia, Huang and Vice President Goh voted aye; President Tanya Peterson was absent — and the permit stands as approved by Planning and the Department of Building Inspection.
