Citizen Blogs are a public space for news and commentary from the community. The views expressed here are those of the individual bloggers, not The Bay Citizen. We aim for this to become a robust forum for discussion of a wide range of issues. If you are interested in becoming a Citizen Blogger on the site, please send an email to info@baycitizen.org and let us know who you are and what you'd like to write about. We look forward to working with you.
Contrary to the flawed premise that “historic preservationists” have “ambitious plans to preserve large swathes of the city,” only a tiny fraction of all parcels – 1.38 percent to be exact – is protected as individual landmarks or historic districts. Duboce Park, Golden Gate Park, and a group of eight masonry buildings on Market Street are the only new districts proposed for adoption. If approved, Duboce Park would become the city’s twelfth historic district, the first since 2003, and by far the most permissive.
After a lengthy, collaborative process to craft the Duboce Park historic district, the resulting ordinance is a model of community engagement, responsiveness and compromise. Based on input from residents and Supervisor Scott Wiener, the Planning Department has made nearly two dozen changes to dramatically streamline approval and exempt entire classes of projects from historic review altogether.
This public process has yielded review standards that allow unprecedented flexibility for owners looking to expand or renovate their historic homes. Bathroom and kitchen remodels may proceed without any historic review whatsoever. There is no additional review for garage doors, window replacement, seismic work, solar panels, roof replacement, rear yard fences, and many alterations to non-visible facades. Larger projects such as replacing front steps and non-visible additions can be signed off by staff after a 20-day wait period. Based on input from residents, the Planning Department even scaled back the definition of “visible” to exclude projects that can only be seen from outside the district. Only major additions could make their way to the Historic Preservation Commission, which has approved all but one project that has come before it.
Historic districts give residents two rare and economically valuable assurances: that the very qualities that attracted them to their neighborhood will endure over time, and that they can safely improve their home without fear that their neighbor will undermine this investment with a new “monster home” or inappropriate development. They help avoid delays and neighbor-to-neighbor clashes by identifying protected features in advance and by clearly defining the approval process for different types of projects.
Ironically, past imbroglios between neighbors in Duboce Park – fueled by the lack of clear rules – have prejudiced efforts to standardize review and provide greater clarity for future projects. The article notes that a “dispute among neighbors” delayed construction of a street-facing dormer for a year. If anything, the supposed “backlash” in Duboce Park is not because of preservation guidelines, but a lack thereof.
To garner broad community support, proposed historic districts should balance protections with tangible economic and regulatory benefits. Although steps have been taken to streamline review in Duboce Park, San Francisco needs to remove existing hurdles to accessing preservation incentives such as the Mills Act, which cuts property taxes in exchange for an owner's commitment to maintain their historic building. Where San Francisco has only five Mills Act contracts in place, Los Angeles has over six hundred. Certainly, the residents of Duboce Park and other historic districts should be able to avail themselves of incentives that exist, but are too often illusory.
The pride engendered by historic places like Duboce Park should be celebrated, reinforced and rewarded by the policies we enact for their protection.
Mike Buhler is the Executive Director of San Francisco Architectural Heritage
Roland Salvato
Mr. Buhler,
I appreciate your conclusion that "If anything, the supposed “backlash” in Duboce Park is not because of preservation guidelines, but a lack thereof" because it clarifies some of the issues that have made the news.
When I moved to San Francisco I was shocked to discover that its large and significant supply of historic homes and districts that played a leading role in the West's development were unprotected in any "official" manner.
Years hence the creation of a Historic Preservation Commission also came as a surprise, but substantiated the strong interest in this preservation. I am one of those firmly behind our City's legacy and the ongoing preservation of districts, homes and the other legacies that formed our City. It is common sense that construction and rejuvenation can continue, but that blind development which risks this legacy is not what the locals have chosen.
Charles Marsteller
My thanks to Bay Citizen for being fair in the presentation of ideas of how we can better our historic preservation laws.
As you know, San Francisco gets 16 MILLION tourists per year--a phenomenon which has continued during this difficult economic downturn--and that number can only grow.
One of the major reasons we attract so many visitors is due to our remarkable climate. But another is clearly the charm and beauty that has been afforded by our commitment to balanced growth and things like historic preservation.
By their visits here, our tourists make a real contribution to our economic vitality and our City's upkeep. I view this as a public trust.
So I am glad to see this robust discussion on how we can maintain a healthy balance of support for historic preservation.
George Smith
We have also been DISCOURAGING tourism through surcharges at attractions for "nonresidents" and actively destroying GGP as a destination through overpriced, ugly new museums....
Unfortunately, Weiner does not value ANY kind of history!
rob bregoff
Mike-
Do you mean to say that homeowners in the Duboce Park Historic District can ADD garage doors without review?
There is nothing you can do to a historic facade that is more heinous than adding a garage door. Asbestos shingles can be removed, detail replaced, but garage doors are forever, seemingly.
I'm hoping that you mean replacing or repairing garage doors, but even then, a cheap, paneled garage door compromises the appearance. Ideally, the city would have architectural guidelines and assistance program to help people replace their "Home Depot" garage doors with something more appropriate to the architectural era of the structure. The same goes for entry doors.
I'm glad that you addressed Ms. Beckstead's concerns. Many of us bought homes in the neighborhood when it was more "affordable," and our homes are an ongoing "labor of love." We don't have the financial resources of many of our more recent neighbors. Big projects, and even routine maintenance, often represents a formidable financial burden.
This is a great neighborhood and deserves landmark protection that we can all live with.
J B
The premise that the Planning Department has made dozens of changes to the initially proposed historic district is more testament to how arbitrary the initial documentation and definitions were than your characterization of a "...model of community engagement, responsiveness and compromise." The most recent historic district named in the city was the Dogpatch Historic District and was a community initiated proposal led by a majority of the homeowners. The Duboce Park plan is the result of a historic survey of the Market/Octavia area and was proposed by the Planning Department and requires no property owner approval or consent. It would be quite understandable that Ms. Beckstead would take issue with ill defined documentation which also alluded to the fact that projects in historic districts may take additional time to review and have additional fees. If the planning department does intend to streamline these processes they could make some efforts to put a cap on the additional time and expense and not speak in arbitrary terms. As a person who has been involved in several construction projects, I can assure you that the existing controls in place at the Planning Department do an adequate job limiting the work that can be done on homes in this city and the policing that goes on among neighbors projects will continue to happen regardless of what the planning department comes up with.
In regards to your remarks on the Mills Act contracts and the discrepancies that exist between San Francisco County and others that allow Mills Act contracts - that is a topic better addressed between the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning Department and the City Tax Assessors office. Until they can come up with a way to start allowing these contracts to be signed with the city, expect more backlash from homeowners who are asked to follow new and arbitrary rules while being promised tax incentives which are never granted.
Howard Wong
In many cities throughout the world, time is the factor that creates necessary historic preservation guidelines---when urban quality erodes to irreversible levels. As a relative young city, San Francisco can learn from others. Like many great cities and sites, San Francisco's charm, architecture, history and economic draw is inextricably linked to its historic resources---16 million visitors and $8 billion annually. And if managed well, those economic advantages can benefit property owners as well.
Phill Mein
I am a small residential contractor based in SF. Getting permission to replace windows "in Kind" requires the "Hysterical Society" to get involved if the house is deemed Historical. Recently I attempted to get permission to replace old wooden windows with aluminum clad double hung (in kind). The house was built in the 1930's with all the houses around it transformed into Modern Marvels. I took 4 visits to the department to get them approved...???
I had 3 members decline the clad windows and finally the one person who approved then. So with the difference of opinion on something as simple as replacing windows, I can only imagine the frustration when dealing with such a variation of opinions on a larger project.... Hence the "Hysterical Society"
Andrew Ferguson
I understand that there are about 800 houses that this affects.
If one of them is yours, you should probably have had an idea of what you were in for before you bought it.
And in reply to Phill Mein, above, only four visits to the Planning Dept? That's it? And you're bitching about it? Dude.