Preservation staff warns codifying North Beach historic-review rules could slow permits; commission seeks clarification

San Francisco — Planning department staff and the sponsor’s office presented an ordinance July 19 that would amend Neighborhood Commercial District controls and historic‑preservation review procedures in the North Beach Special Use District and Broadway NCD.

Aaron Star, manager of legislative affairs for the planning department, said the amendment (board file 170419) would add language requiring either the Historic Preservation Commission or preservation staff to make a finding of conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for all known and potential historic resources within the North Beach survey area. "The proposed changes will help maintain and enhance the small‑scale and pedestrian‑friendly character of the North Beach area," Star said, while flagging staff concerns about procedure.

Lee Hepner of Supervisor Aaron Peskin’s office, sponsor of the file, told the commission the intent is to clarify and confirm the scope of what is deemed a historical resource in North Beach and to reduce ambiguity for the public: "Our intent is to explain both expand the scope, in the ordinance to encompass the historical resources that are already being reviewed, but also to remove any ambiguity," Hepner said.

Planning staff and preservation staff raised several practical objections. Tim Frey said codifying the existing uncodified checklist process could be read by the public as requiring a longer Historic Resource Evaluation for projects currently processed with a checklist, and that preservation staff are the only department staff with the specialized skills to draft HRERs. Star warned that producing broader documentation for routine projects could divert scarce preservation staff time and "significantly impact review and processing time for building permits and entitlements within the North Beach SUD." The department recommended maintaining existing procedures and not amending the code as proposed.

Commissioners focused questions on two topics: whether the ordinance would create duplicative appeal routes and how legacy‑business rules should be handled in conditional use findings. Several commissioners said they supported the proposal’s intent to confirm the list of historic resources identified for review but requested clearer language to avoid unintentionally lengthening an appeal or review process. Commissioner Johns urged the legislation writers "pay particular attention to eliminating uncertainties such as we have been discussing today so that we do not inadvertently cause a lot of problems."

The commission instructed staff and the sponsor to revise the draft language to: reaffirm the scope of historic resources to be reviewed, clarify that the codified provision would not automatically require an HRER for small projects now covered by the checklist, and provide additional detail on how legacy‑business vacancies would be treated in conditional use findings. The commission did not take a final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at the July 19 meeting; commissioners asked to see modified draft language in the coming months.

What’s next: Planning staff and Supervisor Peskin’s office said they will work on revised ordinance language and return with clarified findings and process descriptions.