Historic Preservation Commission directs president to draft letter on Family Zoning Plan, pressing planning commission on preservation incentives and Category A

The Historic Preservation Commission voted 7–0 on Sept. 3 to direct its president to draft a letter to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors outlining the commission’s preservation concerns and recommendations about the Family Zoning Plan.

Commissioners and members of the public debated the Family Zoning Plan’s effort to meet state housing capacity targets while protecting historic resources. Planning staff summarized the local program: the rezoning targets increased heights and capacity primarily along neighborhood commercial corridors and transit streets, and staff emphasized that removing Category A historic resources from the rezoning would materially reduce the city’s housing capacity. Staff noted that Category A properties make up about 15% of parcels in the rezoning area and — as presented by staff in commission materials — represent roughly 27% of the estimated housing capacity in the rezoning area. Planning Director Dennis Phillips warned commissioners that failing to meet state-determined capacity targets could expose the city to builders’ remedy lawsuits and other state actions.

Staff presentations and exchanges with commissioners clarified the program components: focus survey and landmarking efforts on rezoned areas; preservation design standards for infill; incentives for adaptive reuse as a potential tool; and prioritizing surveying/landmarking the city’s identified most-significant resources. Maggie Smith (Planning Department staff) and Director Dennis Phillips reiterated the department’s stated goal of pairing upzoning with accelerated surveying and landmarking to protect resources where possible.

Public commenters and preservation professionals urged stronger protections. Courtney Dam Kroeger, a former HPC commissioner and preservation planner, urged explicit protections for Category A and Category B resources or exemptions, arguing that expedient survey work alone may not protect those assets during rapid upzoning. Woody Labonte of San Francisco Heritage and others recommended incentives and transfer-development options rather than defensive surrender to builders’ remedy outcomes. Community speaker Georgia Shutish highlighted the need to protect residential flats and to place limits on interior demolition to preserve affordable housing types.

Commissioners discussed potential approaches to reconcile preservation and housing goals: exemption of Category A resources within the most vulnerable upzone corridors; codifying objective design standards for infill; exploring incentives such as adaptive reuse allowances, fee reductions or tax abatements; and tracking long-term losses of historic fabric. Commissioner Cox proposed specific requests for the letter including: (1) explore exempting Category A properties in neighborhood commercial districts or at least ensure they are not eligible under ministerial upzone approvals; (2) codify objective design standards; (3) develop incentives for adaptive reuse and transfer-development rights; and (4) a commitment to improved tracking of losses.

The commission then moved, seconded and unanimously passed a motion directing President Matsuda to draft a letter to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, to be prepared with planning‑staff assistance and reviewed by the city attorney. Vote: 7–0.

Action: Motion directing the commission president to draft and transmit a letter to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors expressing the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendations on the Family Zoning Plan. Vote: 7–0.

Next steps: President Matsuda will work with planning staff and the city attorney to produce the letter; staff indicated the draft would be prepared ahead of the Planning Commission hearing on Sept. 11.