Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roof Deck Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission reviews draft roof‑deck policy, staff proposes limits on size and access
Summary
Planning staff proposed thresholds for residential roof decks — a maximum of one‑third of roof area, 5‑foot setbacks, and preference for internal access — and solicited extensive public comment about privacy, cumulative impacts and fairness for smaller houses. Commissioners asked for more data and outreach before adoption.
San Francisco Planning Department staff on Thursday presented a draft Residential Roof Decks Policy that would set numerical thresholds and review procedures intended to make permit outcomes more predictable while protecting neighbors’ light, air and privacy.
David Winslow, a staff architect, told the Planning Commission the policy aims to balance ‘‘allowing for the reasonable provision of outdoor open space on the roofs of low‑density residential buildings’’ while ‘‘protecting the quality of life for adjacent neighbours.’’ The department’s recommended standards include a maximum roof‑deck area of one‑third of the roof, a minimum 5‑foot setback from building edges (except rear walls), cumulative area calculations for decks across a building, and a hierarchy of access that favors roof hatches or internal staircases over external penthouses.
Chris May, planning staff, said projects that meet the thresholds could continue to be approved over the counter, while larger or noncompliant decks would be routed to the Residential Design Advisory Team and possibly to discretionary review. May said the department would append a compliance summary to staff reports for discretionary hearings and develop an implementation tool such as a simplified checklist.
The policy drew broad public response at the hearing. Residents, neighborhood groups and design professionals raised recurring concerns: large decks and stair penthouses can be visible from the street and adjacent windows, increase noise and light intrusion, and may be used to market properties at higher prices. ‘‘I think the stair penthouses, if you do have a roof deck, are terrible,’’ said a public commenter during the hearing. The Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods asked for a review checklist and broader notification for over‑the‑counter permits.
Architects and some homeowners warned that a strict one‑third rule could disproportionately penalize small houses. ‘‘It discriminates against smaller houses,’’ said one commenter who urged either a proportional approach or a capped maximum. Several AIA members and architects urged clearer definitions and asked to be more actively involved in drafting the final guidelines.
Commissioners praised the proposal’s goal of predictability but flagged technical and equity questions. Commissioner Moore urged staff to use clear diagrams and examples that show how the rule would operate in different house types; Commissioner Koppel recommended outreach to the Board of Appeals and supervisors to minimize later conflicts. Several commissioners echoed requests for a deeper data dive on where roof‑deck permits and discretionary reviews have clustered in the city.
Staff said they pulled a preliminary three‑year data set that identified roughly 60 discretionary reviews that referenced roof decks, but acknowledged a more detailed data analysis is needed. Pending further direction, staff recommended additional outreach with neighborhood groups, development of an implementation checklist, and a return to the commission with refined thresholds and an adoption resolution.
The item was heard for comment; staff will return with revised proposals and additional outreach materials.
