Board of Appeals upholds permit for rear deck at 515 Third Avenue, denies neighbor's appeal

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 27 denied an appeal by neighbor Linda Matsumura of the Department of Building Inspection’s permit for a rear deck at 515 Third Avenue, voting 3‑0 to uphold the permit. The board said the permit had been issued properly and encouraged the parties to resolve remaining privacy concerns privately.

Matsumura, the appellant, told the board she returned from a trip to find a large deck adjacent to her backyard porch and said she did not receive correct notice. “People on that deck would be able to see me inside my home without warning at eye level,” she said, urging the board to require a 10‑foot fence and a privacy screen before the deck is used by tenants.

The planning department and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) recommended the board deny the appeal. Tina Tam, deputy zoning administrator, said the deck is a one‑story rear deck, measures roughly 14 by 10 feet, sits under 10 feet in height, meets setback rules and is compatible with neighborhood character. “The project complies with the planning code,” she said. DBI plan reviewer Matthew Green confirmed the permit (No. 20226085905) was approved and issued on June 10, 2022, and told commissioners a separate building permit would be required to construct a 10‑foot fence whereas a fence under 6 feet would not require a permit.

Artin, the deck designer representing the property owner, told the board the deck was approved over‑the‑counter and is about 7 by 14 feet with a 5‑foot setback; he said the owner would pay for a 6‑foot fence and offered to install and maintain a privacy screen on the deck if the screen did not itself require a permit. “The owner … is planning just to give access to that one bedroom only,” the designer said, noting the stairs provide egress but access can be limited.

Commissioners discussed whether to impose a condition requiring a privacy screen or fence. DBI staff indicated they could add inspection notes and that a three‑foot privacy screen above the guardrail could be an option; DBI also said it would enforce permit scope if construction exceeded what was approved. Rather than issuing a condition, the board’s motion to deny the appeal rested on the finding that the permit was properly issued and on the expectation neighbors would work out mitigations. Commissioner Tina Chang moved to deny the appeal; the motion carried 3‑0 (Commissioner John Transvenia: Aye; President Rick Swig: Aye; Commissioner Tina Chang: Aye).

The board’s action upholds DBI’s site permit; commissioners and staff encouraged the parties to continue negotiating mitigation (a 6‑foot fence or an owner‑maintained privacy screen) and reminded the appellant that DBI will investigate complaints if work goes beyond the approved plans.