Board modifies Chestnut Street rooftop‑deck permit, orders revised plans to protect neighbors’ privacy

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 1 issued a conditional approval for the rooftop‑deck permit covering 379–399 Chestnut Street, resolving a contested appeal that raised privacy, safety and prior unpermitted‑work concerns.

Appellant (identified in the record as Derek) described repeated unpermitted work at the rear of the building and said a 2019 reroofing episode filled his apartment with black smoke, prompting a complaint and a notice of violation. He argued the proposed deck would be too close to light wells and other windows, would harm privacy and could be misused as a short‑term rental amenity. Appellant asked the board to revoke the permit.

Designer Matt Owens and the permit holder submitted photographs and planning research showing aerial evidence of a deck at the location dating back to 2002 and earlier; planning staff located imagery they said could show a deck as far back as 1938. Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam explained that Planning treated the project as a deck on top of a nonconforming structure under Planning Code section 188 and went beyond minimum requirements by issuing a 10‑day notice to neighbors. Planning recommended upholding the permit but offered a design compromise: pull the railing back to avoid the light well and provide additional privacy protection there.

DBI representative Matthew Green said plan checkers interpreted the project as a rebuild in kind based on permit history (including a 2019 reroof permit that referenced a deck) and that fire‑department and building inspections will be required before final sign‑off.

After considerable discussion about whether removal/rebuilding in 2019 rendered the deck "new" or an existing nonconforming structure, the board adopted a compromise motion (moved by Commissioner JR Epler) to issue the permit on conditions: the exterior railing adjacent to the light well be pulled back approximately 4 feet from the common property line, and the railing at the light‑well side be built as a solid wood privacy element (commissioners and the appellant discussed height; the motion recorded calls for a privacy element and design details to be finalized in the special conditions permit). The motion passed 4–1. The board instructed staff to require revised plans and a special conditions permit reflecting those modifications before final sign‑off.

Impact and next steps: The permit-holder must submit revised plans that reflect the setback, privacy material and any agreed guardrail height; DBI and the fire department will inspect for safety before final approval. The board’s decision balances Planning’s finding of historical use with neighbors’ privacy and safety concerns.