[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6788600,"mediaKeyId","5610287-d4741ee672c83d354f774704ed9180ad","parentId",5610287,"title","Planning department outlines Family Zoning Plan; HPC urges clearer protections for historic resources","audioSeconds",6316,"startMs",9755010,"endMs",16071170,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5610287-d4741ee672c83d354f774704ed9180ad&start=9755&end=16071","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5610287-d4741ee672c83d354f774704ed9180ad/thumbnail_9755010.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6788600/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Planning-department-outlines-Family-Zoning-Plan-HPC-urges-clearer-protections-for-historic-resources","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6788600-e9fe7a5a9dcf5396886242851ff1a30a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933410&Signature=aOQTkFwOpfVOK19Sa4fh7eoTnWNCWJ210Lzc2EmLZPvKt~ffqYiaZuvu22ck0paJapCKSxAs4hqPzKQ~78jhcSE3L1g-qxf0vbQI1M3hLt4TozwRPE2aH4V6L8KyLAOQ61mCgUSM0W-fraqEritTRXNVpQpaBpdzb7Fl~CiHTQj3CmT5ltgu7FUJPH3EWsLB59ZoV7rG1iyeGwTqy~maIJfomFxpk63odDl~svHbK9o5xcpf5p-IwxtacfMXuOVqDzAbV~a2~QpMIBV7UZY9HbPsUIQWuPftH9DlXPzZMpB5i-eMg9ORScVLWTXEq0VkxeDw04R1caEG4~ydozVzYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-08-20T00:00:00Z","article","The San Francisco Planning Department used an Aug. 20 informational hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission to present the Family Zoning Plan, a citywide rezoning package intended to create capacity toward the state's housing mandate while preserving the city's most significant historic resources.

Planning staff described two driving reasons for the proposal: compliance with state housing-law requirements and a local goal to expand housing supply in high-opportunity neighborhoods. The plan identifies housing opportunity areas, introduces a local \"Housing Choice SF\" program (an optional local incentives menu parallel to state density bonuses), and defines a suite of objective design and preservation standards the department expects projects to meet.

Preservation staff outlined an expedited landmarking pilot tied to the rezoning: staff identified 16 Article 10 landmark candidates in Supervisor Mandelmann's district and proposed a citywide phased effort that prioritizes Category A resources (properties deemed to have the highest historic value). Staff said Category A properties represent roughly 14% of parcels in the plan area and described the SF Survey'workstream to evaluate Category B properties and recommend additional protections.

Commissioners welcomed the presentation but repeatedly asked for more specificity: maps showing where Category A parcels sit within the rezoned corridors, numbers for parcels that would be exempted from ministerial (fast-track) pathways, and how preservation design standards will be expanded to address historic districts and contextual infill. Several commissioners urged staff to expand protections beyond individually landmarked buildings, especially for identified Category A sites and thinly documented districts.

Public comment reflected the same split: advocates for more protection warned that the rezoning could put vulnerable local landmarks and district character at risk, while housing advocates and the Housing Action Coalition said the plan balances preservation and housing production and urged adoption to address affordability. Preservation groups suggested options including accelerated designation of Category A properties, temporary pauses or moratoria on certain upzones for the most sensitive properties, and incentives for owners to preserve rather than demolish historic assets.

Staff proposed immediate next steps: share the plan maps and overlay data with commission members, accept written HPC recommendations ahead of the Planning Commission's Sept. 11 adoption hearing, and agendize an HPC letter or findings at the Sept. 3 HPC meeting if the commission wishes to transmit formal recommendations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff told the Historic Preservation Commission that the Family Zoning Plan aims to add housing capacity required by state law while using an expedited landmarking pilot and preservation design standards to shield the city's highest-value historic resources.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6788607,"Neighbors, preservationists call for penalties and tighter oversight after illegal work at 2229 Webster",4181,4005800,8187145,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5610287-d4741ee672c83d354f774704ed9180ad&start=4005&end=8187","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5610287-d4741ee672c83d354f774704ed9180ad/thumbnail_4005800.jpg","/articles/6788607/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Neighbors-preservationists-call-for-penalties-and-tighter-oversight-after-illegal-work-at-2229-Webster","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6788607-9e50e3d5fb4023c38dcf6559a37a80c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933410&Signature=o6WDYT3YLO4cfvHC1XuFeLL3RNM6D7NTupsbBcfoKRGe~wi3zeHHjbLLXsn9f7sxxSkY-sTAZrE30ogPX3vUQHu~J-cvcVB8LuLzd8zXh9ALQ7YjTQ2JZVNMvVAxwO5JVTkpwGyXJFumqTuaB5b6zxNi4ty6S2-E2PF1SWy3uUS4OcEKIewCll8Sw3yEaEjHpkL06rED8AwOTu~sW0m38NNpSi~JL9U4tbEICd~eYt6YRPsofn7-lwbRxowpq-Q0BgGuDuw5BQJjJbIf5iKmdgD4475Po6gcz3DhZL-NdLFazQ8AN4WEkMflsoOP5KzfuoVRquXuz1nbGRDahpVCwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission on Aug. 20 advanced action on an enforcement case at 2229 Webster Street after weeks of controversy over unpermitted demolition and alterations to an Article 10 historic property.

Planning staff told commissioners the department's enforcement timeline began after an over-the-counter building permit was issued in June 2024 without a required Certificate of Appropriateness. A code-enforcement case opened in October 2024, the permit was later suspended, and the owner filed the COA application in March 2025 to legalize work done without entitlements.

Neighbors and preservation groups urged the commission to use the new enforcement authorities aggressively. Michael Dern said removal of a mature street tree and curb cut proposals harmed the streetscape and public parking; Woody Labonte, president and CEO of San Francisco Heritage, said the scale of demolition warranted strict action and argued against a lenient resolution. Ray Greenwell and others described salvaging a dozen original windows from what they said were contractor dumpsters and said city staff and the owner were negotiating restoration of those historic features.

Code enforcement manager Kelly Wong summarized the case history and told the commission staff had confirmed work exceeding the over-the-counter permit. Zoning administrator Teague explained a 2023 ordinance added punitive enforcement tools: a one-time penalty of up to $250,000 per dwelling unit added or removed and up to $500,000 for significant damage or demolition of historic resources. Teague said staff were reviewing whether this case meets the criteria for a one-time penalty and expected a decision in the coming weeks; that enforcement action is separate from the COA vote before the commission.

Commissioners pressed for clearer plans and stronger enforceable conditions if they allowed legalization. Several asked staff to require technical specifications, contractor qualifications, periodic progress reports, construction kickoff meetings, and photographic monitoring during work. Staff said those monitoring conditions (including monthly photo updates and periodic inspections) are commonly used and could be added to a COA if the commission approves.

Given the scope of disagreement and the need for a detailed abatement strategy, the commission unanimously moved to continue consideration of the COA to Sept. 17 so staff and the owner can produce a restoration strategy, updated plans, and clarifying documentation; the zoning-administrator's penalty determination will proceed on a separate enforcement timeline.","The Historic Preservation Commission heard extensive public concern and staff enforcement updates over large unpermitted alterations at 2229 Webster Street, continued the COA to Sept. 17 for a restoration plan, and signaled a separate zoning-administrator penalty review that could include a one-time fine up to $500,000.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6788595,"Historic Preservation Commission votes: COAs approved for Fulton, Liberty and Mission; several items continued for more information",7307,1507420,8815340,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5610287-d4741ee672c83d354f774704ed9180ad&start=1507&end=8815","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5610287-d4741ee672c83d354f774704ed9180ad/thumbnail_1507420.jpg","/articles/6788595/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Historic-Preservation-Commission-votes-COAs-approved-for-Fulton-Liberty-and-Mission-several-items-continued-for-more-information","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6788595-1c34ca8d79f21281b0663c01fdf43cbb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933410&Signature=a2LSCnHWRVI8j3Qq3lmi~vPWymizh-FIxtJYVLQC86jFnZW5geBc3reZP8nQUVoXjIZcWyNby1bG3jgWPkhDw63uDBBL3FXmCbtM24S1G8I9tZN1KQJzU~d06whLSOd6U2dFEsH0BvEHgd5piqc1Hf99LBYPLoLeqjWyULWAEFHXg1~YlFPXDbdIkCZRw1AdESTW7bEsUpLhIb0wazH8Yd9bc4MRTjP7fgD4XLGKnw617nr1qK4WIp-ZZFYgXmD2AMemGNWT2PJHNUCDhjf7XXI3kjPTpA2i8TmM3gnn-b-fycHDiOkvdMAkxI4BNcnYQ~QYX5W5e7iQDPaEBWdE~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its Aug. 20 meeting the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission took several formal actions on Certificates of Appropriateness and continuance items.

Votes at a glance

- Adopted draft minutes for July 16, 2025 (unanimous 6'0).

- Item 4 (60 Federal Street, Case 2025-002419 COA): motion to place the item on indefinite continuance passed unanimously (6'0).

- Item 5 A/B (1216 Fulton Street, Case 2024-006231 COA/VAR): staff recommended approval; after sponsor presentation and limited public comment the commission moved and unanimously approved the COA with conditions (6'0). Staff and sponsor noted the project responds to fourplex legislation and proposed a variance related to bike-parking corridor width (Section 155.1); the zoning administrator supported the variance findings.

- Item 6 A/B (76 Liberty Street, Liberty Hill historic district): staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The commission approved the COA and variance with added conditions that sponsor update plans (including depiction of an abutting light well and garage glazing) and that the rear deck railing remain open with privacy screening on the west side (motion passed unanimously, 6'0).

- Item 7 A/B (19'21 Liberty Street): given questions about a circa-1919 accessory building and missing documentation, the commission directed staff to obtain photos/site visit information and continued the accessory-structure discussion to Sept. 3; the zoning administrator closed the public hearing on the variance but took the variance under advisement.

- Item 8 (2229 Webster Street): a complex enforcement/COA package and extensive public comment led the commission to continue the matter to Sept. 17 for staff to return with a restoration strategy and revised plans; zoning-administrator enforcement/penalty review continues separately.

- Item 9 (2550 Mission Street, New Mission Theatre, landmark #245): staff recommended approval of replacement of non-historic interior seats and floor finishes; commission approved with a standard condition that final materials and finishes be reviewed by preservation staff (motion passed unanimously, 6'0).

Several decisions included explicit implementation conditions (for example: updated drawings to be provided to staff, requirements for open railing and privacy screening, and standard building-permit conditions). Commissioners frequently requested that staff attach monitoring and milestone reporting (construction schedule, monthly photo updates, and site visits) when resolving enforcement-driven COAs. The commission also used the meeting to request follow-up materials (maps and overlays) from the Planning Department ahead of the Sept. 11 Planning Commission adoption hearing for the Family Zoning Plan.","The Commission approved Certificates of Appropriateness for 1216 Fulton, 76 Liberty (with conditions), and the New Mission Theatre, while continuing multiple complex items (60 Federal indefinite, 19'21 Liberty to Sept. 3, 2229 Webster to Sept. 17) for staff follow-up.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning department outlines Family Zoning Plan; HPC urges clearer protections for historic resources

Neighbors, preservationists call for penalties and tighter oversight after illegal work at 2229 Webster

Historic Preservation Commission votes: COAs approved for Fulton, Liberty and Mission; several items continued for more information