Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retained Elements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff unveils draft retained‑elements guidelines to guide façade‑retention projects
Summary
Planning staff presented draft retained‑elements (façade‑retention) design guidelines that would sit atop the Urban Design Guidelines and provide tests for public benefit, volumetric relationships, materials, and ground‑floor activation; commissioners broadly praised the draft and asked for clarity on applicability and mitigation pathways.
Planning Department staff presented a draft set of retained‑elements design guidelines intended to guide projects that retain portions of existing buildings as part of larger new development. The guidelines are framed as a special‑topic layer above the city’s Urban Design Guidelines and are not intended to replace historic design guidance for formally designated resources.
Tim Frey introduced the item and noted the topic has been discussed at the Historic Preservation Commission since 2015; staff worked with San Francisco Heritage and produced examples from local and out‑of‑town projects to illustrate outcomes and pitfalls. “We should be giving the public stronger direction on what would constitute a successful project retaining certain elements of a property,” Frey said.
Maya Small of the planning department outlined the guideline structure: site design and architecture chapters that emphasize (1) sustaining neighborhood‑defining features, (2) establishing new massing compatible with context, (3) modulating new development to support retained massing and facade edges, (4) articulating clear volumetric relationships (architectural “hyphens” rather than superficial facades), (5) harmonizing materials, and (6) restoring and animating retained ground‑floor elements. “This is not a commonly found design guideline in different cities,” Small said, framing the document as a San Francisco‑specific effort to avoid “façadism” and encourage meaningful integration of retained fabric.
Commissioners generally praised the draft but asked for clearer applicability rules. Several asked: when does the retained‑elements guidance apply (non‑historic, non‑contributor buildings; projects that have received overriding considerations in an EIR and then propose retention as mitigation; or both)? Staff said the guidelines are intended to apply when an element is being retained, and they will explore using mitigation measures and clearer triggers in the Historic Design Guidelines to reconcile cases where a formally historic resource is demolished and parts are retained.
Speakers stressed a focus on volumetric integrity, not just surface treatment. Commissioner Hyland and others urged that retention must avoid superficial “postage‑stamp” facades and that retained elements should be restored and integrated so they have architectural dignity within new development. Several commissioners proposed incentives—zoning concessions or financial offsets—to make meaningful retention more feasible for sponsors.
San Francisco Heritage’s chair, Courtney Dam Kroeger, thanked staff for outreach and said Heritage will submit formal comments. Public commenter Georgia Shudish reiterated support for recognizing vernacular San Francisco residential architecture in CadEx documentation and urged clearer occupant information in staff reports.
Staff said the next steps are community outreach beginning with a public meeting scheduled in late February, refinement of triggers and applicability in coordination with the forthcoming Historic Design Guidelines, and the collection of strong local examples to populate the draft. The commission did not adopt the guidelines at the hearing; staff will return with outreach outcomes and clarified applicability and implementation language.
