Board of Appeals upholds deck permit but requires removal or revision for oversized backyard sheds

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 16 granted an appeal in favor of a homeowner opposing an unlawful backyard structure but conditioned the permit for a new deck on the removal or proper permitting of two oversized sheds.

The case involved 175 South Cliff Drive, where the owner of the subject property obtained an alteration permit for a rear deck and stairs that had been built without permits. The neighbor, the appellant, said the deck and other additions had blocked light and encroached on the shared property line, and he raised particular concern about two large sheds built in the required rear yard.

Planning staff told the board the property sits in an RH‑1D district and that the proposed deck would be pulled back three feet from the side property line to comply with code. Tina Tam, deputy zoning administrator for the Planning Department, noted that the two sheds “are pretty big” — staff’s inventory showed one roughly 230 square feet and a second about 164 square feet — and that the planning code limits the combined square footage of all rear‑yard sheds to 100 square feet and a height to no more than 8 feet. “The combined square footage of any number of sheds would have to be no more than 100 square feet collectively,” Tam said.

The Department of Building Inspection (DBI) confirmed a housing inspector issued a notice of violation earlier for the two rear structures because each exceeded 100 square feet and 8 feet in height. DBI’s Matthew Green told the board the deck itself was built without a permit but that the plans now submitted would bring the deck into compliance. He recommended upholding the building permit for the deck while removing language in the permit that referenced the notice of violation, because the permit does not address the sheds. Green said DBI has moved the notice of violation forward in its enforcement process and that, unless the owner files corrective permits or abates the structures, the case could proceed to a director’s hearing with penalties of $250 per day for continued noncompliance.

The property owner’s agent, Juan Duque, said the clients had intended to address the deck first and were prepared to work with planning staff to resolve the sheds. The appellant told the board he was satisfied that the revised deck plans addressed his concerns.

After discussion about how to avoid duplicative permitting and to ensure abatement, the board voted 5–0 to grant the appeal and issue the deck permit on condition that the permit be revised to delete the reference to NOV 202292465 and that revised plans be submitted showing removal of the sheds or otherwise bringing them into compliance. DBI and Planning will monitor whether the owner submits revised plans; if plans are not filed the notice of violation will proceed and DBI will pursue enforcement.

What happens next: the permit for the deck proceeds with the required revisions; the two rear‑yard structures must be reduced to 100 square feet combined and 8 feet in height or be removed unless a variance is filed and approved. If the owner fails to act, DBI’s enforcement process — including a director’s hearing and daily penalties — will apply.