Neighbors, permit holders and staff to reconvene; Board of Appeals continues Seacliff deck appeal to Sept. 27

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Aug. 2 continued an appeal of a deck and roof‑deck permit at 14420 Fifth Avenue to Sept. 27 after extended testimony from neighbors, the permit holder and city staff.

Appellants Bruce and Deborah McLeod told the board the permit would create a second‑floor deck and stair configuration that would intrude on their privacy, threaten a mature maple tree used as a privacy screen, and that the tree and the neighbor’s rear windows were not shown or properly addressed on the plan set. “The only thing that is possible is what we suggested for them, and that is just move the stairs 5 feet 8 inches in behind my wall,” McLeod told the board, urging the board to require lateral relocation of the stair run.

Permit holders and their architect said the project meets the planning code and residential design guidelines, that they reviewed code clarifications with planning staff and that the deck and stairs were consistent with setback and firewall constraints. Architect Renato Jose described meetings with planning staff and design review staff that confirmed the deck met setback and RDG requirements. Planning staff, represented by zoning administrator Corey Teague, told commissioners the project was eligible for over‑the‑counter approval and that the scope did not trigger required neighborhood notification; DBI inspector Kevin Birmingham said the permit review and issuance were proper.

Multiple neighbors testified, raising privacy and process concerns and saying they had not been given adequate notice of the over‑the‑counter approvals. Commissioners questioned whether converting certain clear guardrails to opaque glass or relocating the stair run would reduce the privacy impacts and examined code constraints: DBI staff explained how the 1‑hour firewall and head‑height/structural conditions constrain some design options.

After extended questioning and public comment, several commissioners suggested a continuance to let the parties confer and for Planning to be available for technical guidance. Commissioner Lindbergh moved to continue Item 6 to Sept. 27, with the parties asked to attempt outreach, provide one‑page statements summarizing any agreements, and to keep Planning available for technical clarification. The board voted unanimously to continue the item.

The continuance gives neighbors and the project sponsor time to pursue mitigation options (for example, an opaque glass guardrail in one area or design adjustments) and to report back to the board.