Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Space Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears informational presentation on residential open-space requirements and flags review of balcony credit and group-housing rules
Summary
Planning Department staff briefed the commission on the history and current mechanics of Planning Code §1.35 (usable residential open space). Commissioners pressed staff to review the 6x6 balcony credit threshold and the applicability of group-housing standards, and staff said they will return with further analysis.
San Francisco planning staff on July 8 gave an informational presentation on residential usable open-space requirements in Planning Code section 1.35, and commissioners signaled interest in revising aspects of the code in light of COVID-era lessons and equity concerns.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department summarized the historical development of open-space rules (from early zoning in 1921 through significant reforms in 1960 and the 1978 citywide rezoning) and described the code’s current mechanics. He cited example open-space amounts that vary by zoning district—ranging from roughly 300 square feet per dwelling unit in lower-density RH1D districts to about 36 square feet per unit in higher-density C3 districts—and explained the difference between private usable open space (intended for a single unit) and common usable open space (shared by multiple units).
Sanchez reviewed physical requirements that make space “usable,” including minimum dimensions and exposure: private balconies must be at least 6 by 6 feet (36 sq ft) to count toward requirements; ground terraces require 10-foot dimensions and at least 100 sq ft; common usable open space has a 15-foot minimum dimension and a 300-sq-ft minimum area. Staff also noted slope rules (areas with slope greater than 5% are not credited) and that in some Eastern Neighborhood and downtown districts, off-site publicly accessible private open space (POPOS) or on-site publicly accessible space can be used to meet requirements.
Commissioners debated whether those standards remain appropriate after the COVID-19 pandemic and whether the 6x6 minimum disincentivizes providing smaller balconies that still offer valuable outdoor access. Commissioner Diamond urged staff to consider crediting smaller balconies so developers are encouraged to provide them; Chair Moore and others suggested forming a subcommittee or convening staff-commission working sessions to refine standards. Commissioners also raised concern that the state density bonus can undermine local open-space goals by allowing waivers or concessions; staff noted a local Home SF option exists that grants only a 5% open-space reduction as an incentive.
Staff committed to further analysis: review of the 6x6 rule, an examination of group-housing open-space standards, outreach to other California jurisdictions, evaluation of public-health findings that could justify a minimum floor for open-space protections, and a possible return to the commission with recommendations (staff estimated late fall for preliminary conclusions). Commissioner interest in a subcommittee or focused working group was noted; staff agreed to coordinate next steps with the commission president.
The informational item ended with no formal action; several members of the public had earlier raised project-specific concerns (light-study methodology for 1525 Pine, mapping questions) which staff said they would follow up on separately.
