Reject San Francisco Planning's New Residential Roof Deck Policy

It has come to our attention that the Planning Commission of the City and County of San Francisco requested that the Planning Department provide a policy (Guideline) as regards to Roof Decks in an effort to reduce the number of Discretionary Review hearings. We believe there is a need to inform the public of the unwritten and unlegislated regulations surrounding the Department and Commission's review of roof decks, but the proposed policy / legislation presented on 08/30/18 moves the discussion in the wrong direction, and is likely to result in more, not fewer, Planning Commission Discretionary Review Hearings.

We, the undersigned, ask that the Planning Department withdraw the Guidelines of 08/30/18 and the Commission put off any action on them as they are terminally flawed in concept and as drafted. 

For reference, we include links to SF Planning's website for the following:

• general information
• executive summary
• informational presentation

Roof decks exist in San Francisco because of our climate, our lifestyle, our density, and our desire to interact with the outdoors.

We encourage the Planning Department and Planning Commission to view roof decks as positive:

• A source of much needed outdoor space adjacent to indoor living, especially in concert with ADU and other housing initiatives
• A space for fresh air, playing, star gazing, cooking, eating
• Often the only usable outdoor space for homes and units on upsloping or downsloping lots, lots with limited access to sun or air, or lots with limited yards, or units facing the street.
• Provide much needed access to outdoor space in dual or multi-unit buildings, where roof decks and balconies are the only option, and many units only face the street where these guidelines limit roof decks
• An essential amenity to allow families to change, grow, and stay in San Francisco, as is encouraged by City policy.

The Guidelines and legislation being proposed seem to be fueled by what we feel is a misunderstanding of what it means to be a member of a world class community like San Francisco. These guidelines seem, primarily, to be written in an effort to limit what are perceived to be "negative impacts that spill over to adjacent properties." We take issue with that characterization. Living in a world class city means living in close proximity to people of all walks of life. It is why we live here: to be close to, and interact with, other people.

The Planning Code is filled with language and descriptions of a City that is vibrant and connected, and much of how the City and its inhabitants are connected is through open space, in a variety of ways and on a variety of scales. While we understand that the process of building here involves neighbor input, the notion that restricting such wonderful, open space resources as roof decks only serves to further sow discord and shut down communication between citizens.

The Residential Design Guidelines describe desirable spaces being achieved by respecting mid-block open space and providing terraced set-backs. All of these design guidelines point to open space on and above buildings as being an additional resource for inhabitants of the City to enjoy. In our climate and with our topography, roof decks are as much a part of the fabric as Bay Windows and Victorian detailing. To restrict their use because a few neighbors might have issues communicating is not the solution.

Most of the regulations included are excessive and unnecessary. Five-foot setbacks from the edges of buildings (not even the property line) can and will easily result in unusable deck space. The stair configurations, as described, are almost all unworkable in a San Francisco footprint. Keeping the stairs outside the five-foot limit means having the stair be at least five feet off property line walls in the house below. This would create remarkably inefficient layouts, compromising valuable interior space as well.

We are completely baffled by the notion that "the prevalence, location, and size of other related decks in the immediate context shall be established and considered before approval." If roof decks' existence, location, and size means that our house is only allowed to have one that is like the others, what does that mean for neighborhoods that do not? This seems to set up differential / preferential treatment depending on which neighborhood one lives. Roof decks are allowed in certain neighborhoods, but not others.

We have seen our neighbors add roof decks to their houses. The net result is positive. The roof scape looks better. We enjoy seeing our neighbor across the way and wave to them.

We implore the Planning Department and Planning Commission to not instigate this new policy on roof deck restrictions. It is detrimental to our way of life, the beauty of our City, and inspires differential treatment depending on your neighborhood. Please preserve the amenity for the many while refuting the demands of the few.