Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission grants modified discretionary review for Fair Oak roof deck, requires setback and planter buffer
Summary
After neighbors said the owners broke a previously negotiated agreement by enlarging a rooftop deck and moving a glass windscreen, the Commission took discretionary review and ordered a compromise: the usable deck must be set back (to provide a planted buffer) so the parapet/planted area screens views while allowing expanded outdoor use.
Neighbors filed discretionary review after new owners of 201 Fair Oak expanded a rooftop deck and moved a glass windscreen in ways petitioners said violated a previously negotiated design agreement that had settled an earlier DR. Petitioners asked the commission to enforce the earlier agreement; owners said they misunderstood local permitting and moved the features without a full discretionary approval, then promptly filed to legalize the deck.
Neighbors described a multi-month mediated process that produced a negotiated set of revised plans that, they said, were memorialized in Planning Department correspondence. Petitioners argued the new owners were aware of the agreement and nevertheless pushed the windscreen to a street-visible location. Project counsel said the private agreement is not binding on a subsequent property owner and that owners filed a permit once they were informed of permit requirements.
The commission deliberated on whether a private agreement that produced a withdrawn DR should prevent the new owner from seeking a permit, and whether the deck as built created an "extraordinary circumstance". After testimony from numerous neighbors and supporters on both sides the commission adopted a compromise: require the usable portion of the deck to be set back to create a planted buffer (roughly a 19-foot-2-inch deck with planters beyond that) rather than the full extent of the sponsor's requested footprint; the motion passed 4–2 with Commissioners Antonini and Sugaiya opposed.
