not make sense. those are my two main issues. the one third rule of the blanket rule against smaller buildings and the roof should be the roof, not the second or first floor of the house. i am in support at i understand the need for a setback for neighbor privacy. i understand the need for getting rid of hot tubs and things that allow for parties and lots of noise. i understand that. so i am neutral on that card for that reason. again, i just want a wafer on -- owners of small houses to be able to build something of a reasonable size and not only reward those with big lots. [please stand by]

-- off the -- often the living materials die off. it's part of the quality of life. state law requirements for power sources for existing and new buildings. prioritize with less obtrusive means and have roof hatches and internal stairwells as a last resort. the penthouses should have minimal impact on light access

and minimal clutter. only adjacent neighbors are affected, because they're high. coalition for san francisco neighborhoods requests a checklist of the matrix that will be used for review to determine compliance regarding the issues in our letter. i think that was part of the implementation. notifications to occupants having a line of sight to the deck, that could intrude upon the occupants' policy given. 10-day notice is insufficient with over the counter roof decks. it doesn't have the mandatory meeting. i submit the summary for 150 words or less and a copy of the fuller for whoever wants it look at it again. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon.

teresa flandrick. yes, as georgia said, traditionally, laundry was hung out on the rooftops, at least in north beach. i had to convince my 88-year-old landlord to stop climbing up to the roof to hang out her laundry. that i would do that and then hopefully the generation behind me would do that for me. with roof decks, traditionally as in the last 10 years since airbnb have started, the first clue they needed to check to see if it was an airbnb site was a rooftop deck and they were growing -- especially in north beach, and, indeed, parties were out there. a fire on a rooftop where they were 100-year-old buildings.

that's been my concern. if it's for an individual, privacy would be important to them. and for the surrounding neighbors, as a single-family dwelling and wanting a small rooftop deck. i get that. the major concern for me is notification. i want you to think about what is the purpose of neighborhood notification, the real purpose. why was it started? and why would we end that? and if it's just about saving paperwork, democracy is messy, right? i want to be sure that neighbors have a right it weigh in on things that affect their quality of life. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> maurice frankel from the

marina district, district 2, board member of the marina community association. i know these decks have existed, but have been small and unobtrusive. since san francisco a cold and foggy, they only get used 4 to 6 weeks a year. in last few years, we've noticed increasing roof decks, increasing in numbers, side and impact. some decks are so large that they're visible from the street and neighboring windows interfering with open spaces with light, air and policy the planning department has been ineffective in controlling this cancerous growth. the executive summary presented today is a little bit different than what planning circulated on

july 17, which was after extensive review, and more comprehensive. we implored that the commission had three areas. first, reincorporated the following paragraphs, the one pertaining green, the one pertaining appliances, the one pertaining lighting, and the one pertaining screening. second, reincorporate the setback of 5 feet to the real wall of the building. and, lastly, the emphasis of reducing the staircases needs to be more drastic. the single design element is the one that has the most disruptive effect on the overall roof line of a particular street. remember, this element is big, not transparent, and usually sticks up 10 to 14 feet above the roof line. external staircases should be

the only allowed sources of access. this may require revising the building code, which is not keeping up with changing san francisco urban landscape. thank you for your attention. i have 10 copies of my comments for the commissioners and a 150-word summary that can be sunshine. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> afternoon, commissioners. i'm rob levy. i'm an architect. i'm the chairman of the public policy and advocacy committee. and i'm here speaking on my own behalf and that of some of my colleagues in regards to the effort to make a more consistent and transparent code, which we applaud and want to support. we would like to participate more actively in this. this has taken us a little bit by surprise.

so we would like to be involved, is my first request. my second concern is that guidelines have a way of becoming de facto code requirements, rather than guidelines. we're concerned about this overall and wanted to speak about guidelines in general and their relationship to the code, particularly in regards to permits streamlining and in particular reducing the d.r.s that this body has to review and we are somewhat concerned in an attempt to clarify things, we may be muddying the waters and creating more work for ourselves, not less. the 5-foot setback is a good example of that, when you contemplate that with the 5-foot pop-out that is allowed. that pop-out is usually 12 feet by 15 feet, applying a 5-foot setback is a 5x12 deck, clearly not the intention of the authors of this guideline.

so we're here simply to ask for more consistent code, more inclusion, and our voice in the creation of this code and more general streamlining so we don't layer guideline on top of guideline, which creates more confusion, discretion and more -- how do you say -- discord. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is chris bigelow. i appreciate the onset of this onset of discussions of quality of life with roof deck

proliferation. calculation of cumulative deck area. i don't know if there's a significant difference between a deck of an upper story of a building and deck of a lower story with respect for the potential of intrusion, noise, light, etc., on neighboring properties. what about balconies? why is a roof deck different from a balcony or a lower story roof deck with respect to the potential of intrusive activity. also, a note about railings and screening. can i have the overhead, please?

here's a glass-enclosed roof deck, seemingly innocuous. >> president hillis: can you speak into the mike? >> yes. from another view, here's some rooftop greening between the edge of the building and the guardrail, which looks to be -- it could be 6, 7 feet tall. is that something that is anticipated as being a positive feature of roof decks? what does this do to sight lines back and forth between adjacent buildings? lastly, might there be some value to limiting the opportunities for glazed roof deck balconies, which become

highly reflective surfaces during nighttime. it's an example of an open wire balcony, which solves that problem pretty well. also, the business that's over the counter for roof decks opens the door for a serial permitting where the initial permit application has no roof deck. maybe it requires neighborhood notification. it does offer the potential for d.r.s by neighbors if deemed necessary. what is to prevent a project sponsor to do project a without a roof deck, good through the full notification process and subsequently do an over the counter permit, which does not require that same notification? thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm mitch laplante. i'm here as a property owner, but also as a retired professor, so i would like to see a little bit more data on this issue that might help inform decision-making. obviously the number of approvals for roof decks has been increasing. so if the number of d.r.s has doubled and yet the number of approvals for roof decks has doubled, there's no change in the rate here. so that's something you should look at. it may be because there are more roof decks, you need to approach things with a different set of administrative rules, but it would be nice to see some data about what actually is behind,

if anything, that you can find, the increase in d.r.s. and what variables are related to that. is it because of size? is it because of light pollution, noise, and so forth? i encourage you to look at this more closely. the other reason i'm here is because in my retirement, i want it build a roof deck on my house so i have a 500-square-foot, flat, sloping roof, perfect for a roof deck. and i've been waiting years to actually build one. so when i saw this change that was being proposed, particularly on the 1/3 cumulative roof area, i got concerned. if i don't get my approval before the changes take place, then i will be stuck with a very

small deck. instead of 500 square feet, it will be about 180 square feet. and there's a technical reason for this, because my house is on a hill, has a dormerred roof in the front, flat roof in the back. and i was told by planning staff that i can't add the dormerred roof area to the flat roof area in the back and that's why it goes from 550 square feet to about 180. the 1/3 rule is onerous. you are going on no restriction in size to something that is very restrictive. so i think that's the most important thing that concerns me. but i also think you are well within your rights to calm what is going on with the building

approved decks and steps to not make them so blowout in terms of noise and other things is important as well. look at the data, please. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm pat richa helsman. i live in noe valley. i would like to make some general, nonspecific comments as a native san francisco and child psychiatrist that spent all of my professional career dealing with families and children and their needs. number one, to be honest -- i think we have to be honest with ourself. the number one reason for roof decks is so that developers and flippers can make more money. it's a glitzy, sexy item. it puts housing out of the price of more people and middle class

stuff. number two, there's a requirement for open space. however, i cannot imagine children playing on one of these decks. are you going to have play structures up there? let's have more outdoor, hands-on yards. this is an area for adult entertainment, not children. we need it focus on the neighborhoods of family and children. number three, if you put this in a residential area, it's not only the light pollution. it's the noise pollution. can you imagine working people coming home from work tired and noise going on 11:00, 12:00 at night? what's even more important to me, you have a child and you want them to get schooling and do home work. how will they be able to do home work with all the noise and the light pollution from these structures? so i know these are not specific comments, but they're general

comments on the quality of life and what we want in our future as san franciscans. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. ms. rom. >> good afternoon. ozzie rom, san francisco neighborhood coalition. i want to continue the same comments made by ms. heldman that these roof decks, particularly when you have so much expansion. nowadays we have 4,000-5,000-square foot buildings where the norm is 1,500 square feet. can you imagine how much of a noise nuisance these structures are going to be? one thing is, i think the set of guidelines that are introduced today was a great step in the right direction. but i just want to add that we do need to have better

guidelines on the rear yards. it's the rear yard that will be impacted. and we need to have more than 5 feet and we do need to have, like, better protection for the people that live in the rear because there are places where both neighbors want to expand. what are you going to do? put a rooftop on top of an expansion? there will be light pollution. we have to be sensitive to that. we saw some pushback from the a.i.a. community. i wanteded to add, mr. levy that mentioned his concerns. i just happen to know that he's proposing two projects in corona heights, which happens to be under permanent zoning control of no more than 3,000 square feet. and his projects are 3,500 to

5,000 square feet. can you imagine putting a roof deck -- i'm not claiming that he is proposing a roof deck, but these are the extent of the projects that the architects are building or hoping to build in the city. so obviously, it's logical for them to oppose any kind of guidelines. i would like for the department to consider better restrictions on the expansion of roof decks in the rear yard. we do have light restrictions in terms of expanding the building into the required setback. we should probably have a similar thing. and certainly we should probably prohibit roof decks on the pop-outs. pop-outs are an addition. if people can expand 55% of the

lot and put a pop-out on top of it, we cannot allow a roof deck on a pop-out. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. pat boskovich. in my 39 years of practicing, i've seen a number of special features from media rooms becoming theaters, swimming pools, not kidding, basketball courts, elevators, all to squeeze more profit out of the building. they haven't been negative to the neighborhood, but they've jacked up the price. we now see two new things -- the roof deck and the sunken room. sunken room undermines the neighbors. the roof deck, if they're not properly vetted or reviewed, they will have a negative impact on the neighbors and neighborhood. this is a private enclosure that

separates this building from everyone else. i know the planning commission is enacting some rules in terms of the size, but there needs to be a requirement that if you need to -- if you are going to allow this, you need to have resip -- reciprocal privacy. you can design it, do a setback, so you are not on the edge and the edge of the building, you create a view blocking a, so the neighbors can't see you and you can't see them. that might be a project that might make sense. if you can't design that privacy, so you are not hearing people, not seeing people, not hearing -- or having the light polluti pollution. so fundamentally, some buildings won't work if they can't be properly designed. and there needs to be a requirement to protect the

neighbors and the neighborhood. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm elizabeth gordon. my husband and i own our home and we ask that the roof deck policy be applicable to roof decks of all kinds, whether it's an existing home or the garage behind a home or we would even say on a portion of a new top floor of an existing or new home. a roof deck is a roof deck is a roof deck. we also think that enough is enough. we believe that the policy should take into account in some concrete and quantifiable way the extent to which the overbuilding has already occurred on the lot. we believe there should be a concrete and quantifiable way so

the already available and proposed open space, whether it's private, shared or whatever, including roof decks, all be considered. it's particularly important when the proposed roof decks and legalization of the existing and illegal roof deck adversely impacts the privacy and quality of life of the immediate neighbors. i think some consideration should be given when thinking about that 5-foot setback of making efforts to have exiting of people using the decks, not just on landings, but perhaps on the deck itself being as far out as possible for many shared property lines. there are clever things that can be done in terms of hinging on hatches to, again, get the traffic away from a shared property line.

san franciscos don't need to be lorded upon from on high. no one does. neighbors deserve and want respect and that means privacy and enjoyment, especially when it comes to the interior of the homes, which are lots of issues, or big issues unto themselves, and enjoying their own space. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i've been in -- i spent some intense earthquakes in the last few years. i've been in a building that had a -- how do you say -- a roof deck and the building held up differently from other dwellings under that sort of impact, i

suppose you could say. there are a number of health benefits to having things like that. the ventilation tends to be better. people don't often talk about that. where there is better ventilation, there is usually a better state of mind. and children can benefit from that. i wanted that to be taken into consideration when people consider this. that's about it. it's something to remember. thank you. have a great day. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm peter temple. can i have the overhead?

>> president hillis: sure. just put that on there. here's before and after of decks being proposed next to my home. you will see that there are decks on all three levels and an incredible invasion of privacy looking back into my house, which is on the left, and the house to the right, which has built a reasonable set of decks. this is currently under review by the planning department and to me it's a huge invasion of privacy and you can see from the shadows -- excuse me -- shadow study here that it is a huge impact on the light and shadow. i certainly hope that something

this excessive would not be something that the planning department or planning commission would approve of. that's all i have. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm glad we jumped into this. i'm glad how far the department has taken it. the robustness and feedback is veilable to broaden discussion points and find areas of common ground and further investigation. i think ultimately whenever you try to develop general policy, the devil is in the details. i am very atuned to the comment, if you have a very small house and you want to add a roof deck,

the roof deck would be very small given the 1/3 rule here. so there are breaking points on the upper end and the lower end, where i think particular attention needs to be spent to the house type, it's location and how it affects others. i think the most profound comment was about reciprocal privacy, as well as livability and openness and air, in a city that is built primarily on a property line build-out, property line to property line build-out. i think roof decks are an anomaly when you look at everybody trying to only have e reciprocal privacy to people on both sides of them the gentleman from the marina neighborhood, his comments rang

true with me, where you depend on openness with nobody having roof decks and it's not just views but feeling of openness. and when roof decks crowd that, it goes beyond the reciprocal privacy. it is almost like a quality of life statement that affects an entire district. for example, at night, a topography of the city, when one neighbor is on their roof deck beyond 10:00 p.m., one roof deck, six or eight people, can destroy four or five blocks around them with noise and light intrusion. and since it's almost impossible to call the police each time, because the time they arrive a few hours later, it's all gone, we need to take this issue much,

much further. i don't have any particular remedies of how to address this, but the broadening of subject matter today, i think is the most important thing we have and i'm really glad that everybody came and weighed in to the extent that they did. what rang true with me is the attention to the use of the rear yard. the buildings with extensive rear yards request building roof decks either for real estate speculation or for other things than we know. we had quite a few projects in front of us where we had extensive rear yards, except people were still asking for roof decks of significant size. and i think we need to start to balance how we deal with the use, the use and usefulness of rear yards. protect them as much as we can

and balance that with the idea of how much rooftop, roof deck, you can have. i think it's an important comment and i commend this as an extension to our discussion on family housing and children in the city. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: great report, staff. if we're going to it in to increase the dwelling units in the city, we're going to have to take a very close look at roof decks because we're creating more flats out of larger buildings, we'll need the roof space for open space. i'm really glad to see that you included the better roof language in there. i was a big supporter of now-senator weiner trying to utilize the rooftops that every building does have. and looking at the fact that we may be looking at water shortages, we cannot create more water, but we can create more

electricity via solar panels on roofs. i'm wondering how much outreach we've done to the supervisors and especially the board of appeals. hopefully they will be on the same lines with uses opposed to us creating some guidelines and policy and having our decisions overturned. i recommend that we reach out to the board of appeals so they're kind of not overturning all of our decisions here. really good that we're addressing the issue initially. i don't -- i don't find the privacy to be as much of an issue for me, myself. i would be a lot more supportive of a larger setback in the front of the building, so the roof decks are not as obtrusive, but still open to looking at the other setbacks and the maximum

percentages as we continue the conversation. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: some of my neighbors asked me, why are you spending your time on this? i said, to save time and increase productivity, because we spend a lot of time on d.r.s and staff spends time working with project sponsors and neighbors. i think in the end, it's going to help us redeploy time to help us unclog the pipeline of whatever it is that is preventing housing. i applaud the director and staff for tackling this. how many years do we have to go through multiple d.r.s over the same thing. i don't know would was on the commission, but 2070 lion street, a roof deck we spent 3 hours and 42 minutes on? come on. it's ridiculous. and it provides project sponsors clarity and certainty. it's a crap shoot.

if you want a big roof deck, and your neighbors are not paying attention, you can sneak it in. and if you have a little roof deck and your neighbors file a d.r. and it's not fair. i really think that certainty, clarity and fairness is really coming out of this. let's see. i also think -- i agree with some of the speakers -- and i will take this to a personal level. i don't have a roof deck on my house. i could because i could -- i have a large footprint house. some of-fellow commissioners have been over. i have a small deck off my kitchen and it has a bench, a table, a chaise lounge and a chair. and i use my backyard. i have a table in my backyard with eight chairs, four chairs around a fire dish. backyards are really where your open space is. unless you don't have a backyard, i don't think anybody should be saying, my roof deck is my open space.

a roof deck is an amenity, an accessory. it's not what -- it's not supposed to be an additional floor. that is really to be large living, large profits. it's become the new, sexy thing. they have. you look at the buildings being put up now, they have the roof deck. it also adds to the unaffordability of housing. they give you the sizzle and sexy factor, so people will pay e exorbitant prices and so i think we need to look at it. we have some verbal and we had some increasing the cost of

housing. i thought to myself, it's a provocative statement. i don't understand where the policy increases the cost of housing. i really don't. most roof decks we've d.r.'d has been on existing buildings. we're not preventing a house from being built. we're preventing a room being added on with a roof decay taxed or just a roof deck. i think that argument is crazy. i think it's the opposite because it provides certainty. this is something that really, i think, fits in the middle. here's what we allow you to do based on policy. if you want to take a step further, there's additional

review. i want to see something where the sponsor says, i really don't care. i'm going to push it to what is absurd. one other thing -- and i think there needs to be a neighbor notification. if it's within the guidelines, forget it. and i don't have as big of a deal with the setback in the back because the owner is looking over their own backyard. i know there are diagonals and things, but generally, you have 35, 45, 50 feet in your backyard and hopefully your neighbor has the same. so the backyard 5 feet, i don't think will make a huge difference. i agree that you don't want people walking town the street, looking seeing you up there doing your thing. and the other thing i want to

say about the size -- let's get to the issue here. i was involved in a partnership that rehabs a property and i didn't make hardly any money on it because i was the developer there and learned my lesson. we had 1,100-square foot, 2 bedroom, 2 bath and the partner said, let's maximize the roof deck. i said, well, what's the occupancy of our flat? four people? what do we need to do, serve thanksgiving dinner for 30 people up there? we have a 280-foot roof deck and it worked. a table that seats six and two chaise lounges and two planters up there. that's what the stager did. a 500-square-foot home, how many

people live there? 1? 2? let's be reasonable. if you have a crowd of people, they should go in the backyard. if you don't have a backyard, maybe there should be an exception. i lived at 7 beaver, 25x35, classic 500-square-foot, you can go look at the property. it was two of us. and so we have three, four people over, 180 square foot. it's enough. i had to seismic upgrade the house. it was prohibitive. it didn't make sense. so let's look at the occupancy and why we need roof decks that are so big. 180 square foot on a 500-square-foot house, seems to be reasonable. i do want to avoid the cruiseship effect, 2nd floor, 3rd floor. we see these and it looks like the love boat, right?

[laughter] i get you need privacy, but on the place at 148 saturn, you are on a hill. there was no privacy. if we put a wall up, the neighbors behind us lost their view. so we had a wire railing, so they could see through it. a couple of things, they complained about the light and we took them out. we don't want to take a nuisance for people that live behind us. all of the amenities, home tub, grill, it doesn't belong up there. it reduces the livability of the neighbors. any other notes? i think this is a real step in the right direction. and i'm in support of it.

>> president hillis: commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i want to echo my fellow commissioners. it's a great steptoe wards us being as predictable and as transparent as possible around these policies. i think people have said that we make decisions on roof decks case by case and i'm excited that we will have a policy in place that really helps people when they think about adding this amenity to their property understand what it is that we're looking for. i agree with commissioner moore that the devil is in the details on this. i think once we put forward a policy, it should be predictable and people within certain guidelines can get approval without having to come before us or other things. i want it to be as inclusive as possible. i echo with some of the feedback around size and making sure that we are putting parameters that

don't hurt certain homeowners over others. we're limited with what we can do in a city. we're all close to each other. being respectful of each other is the tone we're trying to set by this policy. so we need to get the numbers right. i think -- and looking at these buildings holistically, roof decks can provide a quality of life. they can provide open space. i 35 in a multi-unit building, they can provide community space, but we need to make sure that this is not abused. and so, i guess, when we come back to this issue, i would love to see more examples of how this would play out and how it would play out with both our residential design guidelines and other policies in play. i hope we talk to the different

supervisors' offices and making sure that we're getting feedback from all of the districts in the city. >> commissioner moore: i would like to ask mr. winslow for a second. i would like for you to use the word cruiseship effect as something we don't want. it's a brilliant word. >> you want me to say cruiseship on the record? >> commissioner moore: it's something we don't want. cruiseship effect hits the nail on the head with things we've been discussing lately. there are people that want a deck in the front, a deck in the back, a deck on top, and here and there and everywhere. that's the cruiseship effect. when you have a situation with front deck and rear deck, it's architectural massing, which i would like to be put into the

discussion. the idea of private roof decks when there is a common roof deck proposed because it's one of the largest objections that we've seen. i don't see that yet as part of the discussion. >> we were taking baby steps. we know it's part of a larger discussion in larger units when there's a proliferation of larger roof decks and that issue. we wanted to start where we could and build off that. it's in our vision in the next year or so to address the roof decks in the larger, mixed use zoning districts. >> commissioner moore: we would like to see a policy formulated, because we take this up every time we review projects, that roof decks on multifamily dwellings are not desired and something that we don't want -- >> and one of the reasons we take baby steps is there is a lot of parameters that go with

the building types. so we thought our district building types are clear, easy, and we're able to tackle that and approach it with one set of parameters and analysis and recommendations. the multiunit buildings have a whole different construct in a way. stay tuned. >> commissioner moore: thank you for picking up the ball on that. there is one additional comment when it comes to design guidelines, shadow on existing solar equipment when it comes to stair penthouses. i think it's a building of solar equipment. penthouses and roof decks that would cast shadow on existing provisions would be not allowed. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar.

>> vice president melgar: i am generally supportive of this. it is moderate and i like that and i like that it's cumulative. the thing that i would want us to think more about is what was brought up during the comments about the proportionality with the building size. that resonates with me. having a roof deck is one of the features that i've appreciated living in san francisco and i totally understand that sometimes folks abuse privileges, just like they do everything else in urban living. to craft the policy that guides the rules of how things are implemented is important and is our job. so i want to thank you so much for tackling this and i like

where this is going. >> president hillis: echoing some of the comments made. i do think we do need consistent rules and guidelines because i think we take actions that maybe are -- to code complaint roof decks and people feel that we can do things to roof decks that are not necessarily necessary. and the staff may treat them differently, but it's clear. we don't really have clear design guidelines. even the guidelines are geared to pertinence more than decks. i get nervous when we focus on use, like people are loud and can't barbecue on the roof deck, because that can happen on lower levels. i don't get the distinction between a hot tub on somebody's

ground floor or second or third floor. i think privacy is tough to regulate also. i live next to a two-unit building. there's a deck on each floor of that two-unit building, which looms large. people can stand up there and look down on my yard. that's fine. i mean, it's expected. so we're applying this where there may be just, you know, rh-1 or single-family buildings, but we live in an environment where a single-family home could be next to a three-unit home, next to an apartment building. limiting the size of -- i don't like the idea of accumulating the two-unit building or three-unit building that wants open space. this may be the only open space on the roof deck or the back.

it's tough for them if they have a flat on the third floor to get down to the ground floor and the ground floor may be shadowed. i want to be careful in assuming that everybody that uses roof decks as party decks. things like setbacks are important. i agree with commissioner koppel that clear guidelines and setbacks on property lines are important. you could have a deck off the first floor, which looks out on the neighbor's yard. we should stick to that design guidelin guidelines.

it makes me nervous talking about use, not putting barbecues or plumbing. i don't necessarily want to police how people use their roof deck. >> the first draft had some restrictions on things like barbecues and lighting and things like that. and we decided to take it out. because we thought it was not the purview of planning to look at things that might be geared toward regulating possible nuisanc nuisances. if we said, you can not have a hot tub and you cannot have a fixed kitchen or cooking apparatus, well, what is to prevent somebody from getting that deck and wheeling up the weber? we will if the be policing that. it is verging into a side of planning that is a little more behavioral rather than physical. we did eliminate some of those concerns. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. setbacks, height of windscreens,

visual impact, especially on the street level of how these look and feel, again, i'm not against where you have a staircase coming up on the roof deck, but it should be placed in the least visually impacted place on the deck. i can't tell you what my neighbors have on top of their roof. i have no idea, but they could have a stair penthouse in the middle of their roof that you don't see. so i think placement and how these are designed are where we should go and focus this. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i wanted to say that your diagrams are very effective. and i hope as you move forward with this, that you continue to do diagrams, including perhaps sometimes using photos of desirable or not desirable. >> commissioner richards: what

is the next step? >> we'll do a bit more outreach with board of supervisors and another planning commission hearing. >> commissioner richards: on supervisor districts 2, 3 and 8 seem to be where most things happen. we don't really get them in 11 and 10, not yet, until they get fully super-sized. >> president hillis: or maybe we just don't get d.r.s on them. it depends on where it's hilly. >> we did view a very kind of brief data poll. they polled all d.r.s that were within the last three years. i believe there were 60 of them that had the keyword "roof deck" in the project description.

the reason we didn't include that in our analysis is there may have been projects that were d.r.'d that didn't have the term roof deck in the description. we can go back to our data, but it will have to be more of a data dive to get that information, but we can certainly do that. >> president hillis: i think it would be good to live in the residential design guidelines. because that's what they are and it would be great. if people comply with the guidelines, they -- the expectation should be that it's approved over the counter. there isn't much -- we're consistent with that, unless it's an unusual circumstance that would warrant a d.r. as commissioner richards said, it minimizes the process. >> we received that feedback a lot. something apended to the guidelines with illustrations, numbers, more clear guidelines would help.

>> president hillis: great. thank you very much for this. >> clerk: that will place us on the next several items. two different addresses that are one related project. 11a and b and 12a and b for 2013-12245hd and cua, 807 franklin street. and 2017-007542cua and var at 635 fulton street. on franklin, you will be considering shadow findings and conditional use. on fulton street, a conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. >> good afternoon, mary woods, department staff. i will give brief presentations on each of the properties.

i will start with 807 franklin. the proposal at 807 franklin is to relocate the existing victorian building to 635 fulton street. and once that's relocated, the project will build a new 8-story residential building for 48 units. one story of parking for 17 spaces. and 80 class one bicycle spaces. the building will extend 80 feet in height, with two stair penthouses for a total of 96 feet. the project requires a c.u. for building height greater than 50 feet, street frontal greater than 50 feet and slight bolt exception. the project proposal is inclusionary housing, bye-bying the in lieu fee. staff received feedback from the public regarding issues to the relocation of the victorian

building. in order to address that concern, staff is proposing adding a new provision that addresses the relocation. i have a copy of the proposed condition that i would like to give to the commission. basically, this commission would say a qualified preservation professional will be involved in the coordination of the relocation of the victoria building, from 807 franklin to 635 fulton. with regard to 635 fulton street, the proposal includes moving the existing mortuary building, which is three stories. it has two levels of mortuary

use and third floor with two dwelling units, moving that building 14 feet to the east, so the victorian building from 807 franklin could be placed to the west of the mortuary building. the mortuary use would be converted to residential. the project will reconfigure and expand both the mortuary building and victorian building to add 14 new dwelling units for a total of 17 dwelling units. this project also requires a rear yard variance for a small rear addition to accommodate bedrooms to the new unit. no parking is required at this site. 32 class 1 bicycle spaces will be provided. the conditional use for this project is for a building height greater than 40 feet with a 50 feet of street frontage.

this concludes my summary of the project. i'm happy to have any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, ms. woods. project sponsor? i know we have two items here. how much time do you anticipate? >> we'll keep it to 10. >> president hillis: perfect. thank you. would we'll get you -- it should come up. sfgov tv, if we can have the computer. you can use the other mike, too. >> good afternoon. toby morris, representing the project sponsor. mary woods did a great job summarizing the project, the code issues, and environmental

review. >> had lost itsri