Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press for privacy protections as commission approves rear-deck project with conditions
Summary
The commission voted 4–2 to approve a discretionary review at 472 Connecticut, amid neighbors’ privacy concerns about a change from a depicted solid railing to glass railings; staff will continue to work with the sponsor on railing materials and bird-safety guidance.
San Francisco — The Planning Commission approved on June 2 an abbreviated discretionary review for a rear addition and deck at 472 Connecticut Street after neighbors raised concerns that permit drawings showed a transparent glass railing where earlier variance drawings depicted a solid railing.
Tom Bonelli, whose family home borders the project, told the commission the house has been in his family since the 1920s and that earlier variance drawings he received showed a solid railing that would preserve his privacy. He said later permit drawings showed glass railings and that he and his wife had tried unsuccessfully to reach a compromise with the project sponsor.
"We supported the variance based on the variance drawing because it was our understanding that the railing would remain solid," Bonelli said. "We respectfully ask you to take discretionary review and ask the neighbor to construct the railing per the decision or our compliance solution."
Project sponsor Jerry Guay and architect Ashton Richards said the plans submitted and approved showed clear glass railings and that they had offered frosting compromises; Richards told the commission that, from the principal vantage points, the angle makes seeing into the neighbor’s interior "virtually impossible." He argued that at the standing angle the choice of material makes little difference for privacy.
Commissioners addressed two separate concerns: procedural/process integrity — whether the change from variance drawings to permit drawings required a discretionary review — and a broader policy discussion about glass railings and bird-safety guidance. Planning staff said the variance plan illustrations did not create a binding condition of approval in this case, but that staff would work with the sponsor on alternative materials if the Commission requested it.
By a 4–2 vote, the Commission approved the project with staff continuing to work with the project sponsor on railing materials and with direction to consider materials that avoid glass where possible, noting the Commission’s interest in bird-safety and contextual compatibility.
What’s next: The sponsor may be required to revise railing material or opacity as part of building-permit review; staff will draft recommended treatment options and report back to the commission as part of permit conditions.
