Planning Department outlines updated residential design guidelines, signals 2016–17 refresh

The San Francisco Planning Department on Feb. 24 told the Board of Appeals that its Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) are the principal tool planners use to evaluate small residential projects and vertical additions in zoning districts such as RH1, RH2, RH3, RTO and RM. Jeff Joslin, the department’s Director of Current Planning, and David Winslow, a staff architect, described the guidelines’ focus on building scale, mid‑block open space, light and air, and context‑sensitive materials and detailing.

Joslin said the RDGs date to the late 1980s and were substantially updated in 2003, but he called the current documents “not the most modern guideline documents” and said the department plans another update in 2016–17. The department also described the RDT — a multi‑disciplinary review body that advises planners on projects that exceed checklist thresholds — which meets regularly to provide early feedback and written guidance to applicants.

Winslow said the RDT assesses projects’ references to surrounding context using tools such as Sanborn maps and Google Street View and applies design principles like massing, setbacks and bay elements to reduce visual disruption. He said the RDT often recommends setbacks for vertical additions to avoid shadow and privacy impacts and that mid‑block open space and access to light and air remain central concerns.

In question‑and‑answer, commissioners and attendees pressed staff about new trends — roof decks and backyard decks — and how the RDGs handle materials that differ from adjacent buildings. Winslow said the guidelines evaluate materials by family (for example, cementitious finishes versus wood) and by proportional relationships rather than insisting on mimicry. On historic resources, the presenters said preservation review is done separately but in coordination with the RDT; preservation planners participate in RDT meetings when needed and preservation issues are flagged early when possible.

The Planning Department emphasized efforts to reduce delays for small projects through clearer examples in the new guidelines and through process improvements, including offering RDT staff time early in project development. Winslow said the RDT sometimes attends pre‑application meetings to avoid late, costly changes. The department also noted a planned citywide historic resources survey that it said would improve early identification of preservation constraints.

The Board did not take action; staff asked commissioners to provide input during the guideline update.