'Landmark' Distortion
By: Mike Buhler, San Francisco Architectural Heritage
Duboce Park is one of San Francisco’s most coveted addresses—and for good reason. Its four blocks are undeniably special, boasting one of the most intact collections of “Painted Ladies” in a city famous for its Victorian architecture. Residents are justifiably proud that this pre-1906 enclave has endured, largely unchanged, through self-vigilance and good fortune. The Bay Citizen’s recent article chronicling efforts to create a historic district there (“A 'Landmark’ Backlash,” 12/31/11) – and the fears it has inspired among some residents – taps into and perpetuates commonly held misperceptions about historic preservation in San Francisco.
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