On SF’s West Side, a Push to Protect Historic Landmarks Amid Plans for More Housing

As San Francisco leaders finalize their plan to make way for thousands of new homes, they have heard the same criticism: New construction could dramatically change the quaint and quirky character of San Francisco neighborhoods.

In an attempt to appease that concern, San Francisco’s Planning Department wants to find a compromise by identifying historic landmarks for preservation across the city, too.

That tug-of-war is especially tense on the city’s west side, where many new homes could be built by the plan’s upzoning of mostly single-family neighborhoods.

On Wednesday, the Planning Department and Supervisor Connie Chan will host a community forum to discuss designating 10 neighborhood buildings as historic landmarks there. The event will inform Mayor Daniel Lurie’s Family Zoning Plan, which includes a landmark designation program.

“The meeting will be a chance for us, alongside Supervisor Chan, to share information about the landmarking process, what it means, and about work we’ve done in District 1 so far — and to get feedback from the neighborhood,” Dan Sider, the department’s chief of staff, said in an email. “This is a step along the path to elevating the Richmond’s most special buildings.”

The department has already held a forum in the Castro for District 8 and aims to hold such meetings in every supervisorial district eventually. The parcels under consideration in the Richmond include the Jefferson Airplane House on Fulton Street, the Star of the Sea Church on Geary Boulevard, and the Internet Archive on Funston Avenue.

But housing advocates worry the historic landmark program could make it harder to add housing in neighborhoods that have been historically lower-density.

San Francisco plans to upzone large swaths of those neighborhoods to make way for about 36,000 homes. The city’s efforts are part of a larger statewide mandate requiring every city and county to plan for a record number of homes by 2030. But historic designation, housing advocates warn, is increasingly being used as a tool to skirt those rules.

Buildings that receive historic landmark status also enjoy special protections against demolitions and renovations. And if a developer wants to redevelop the historic property, their design often has to adhere to certain rules to maintain the building’s historic character.

Juliana Lamm-Perez, a volunteer lead with Grow the Richmond, agreed that some of the buildings under consideration should be protected, but said others are a stretch.

“There are also a few that it feels like they’re just being protected because they’re old and not necessarily because they have any sort of historical significance,” said Lamm-Perez, whose organization advocates for reducing obstacles to housing development. “We want to make sure that we are not creating more roadblocks to new housing — especially in the Richmond, [which] has seen so little growth in the last 30 years.”

She pointed to 3700 Geary Blvd., which currently houses an Office Depot and a large parking garage.

“I mean, [that’s] the store that I go to for my supplies, but ultimately, if there is an opportunity to create new housing there, we shouldn’t block it just because the building is old,” she said.

Woody LaBounty, president of preservationist group SF Heritage, agreed that the building would be a great candidate for housing, particularly because it is adjacent to Arguello Boulevard, a busy thoroughfare. But he rejected the premise that historical designation would prevent housing from being built there.

According to the Western Neighborhoods Project, a nonprofit historical organization, the Larkins Building was home to the Larkins Carriage Company in 1919. The building later became a garage for Muni buses, and following World War II, it became a car dealership.

“The Larkins building is important, both architecturally and to [the] history of transportation in the city,” he said. “But the big point here is: making it a landmark does not mean you can’t add housing to that building.”

He acknowledged that the designation adds a step to the development process; however, because any changes made to historic buildings often require additional environmental and design reviews.

When it created the list of potential historic sites, the Planning Department referred to previous surveys, worked with residents, property owners and supervisors, and made sure each site complied with the city’s existing historic designation standards. Then, it whittled down the list to 10 properties.

“We want to share those buildings with the public tonight and get their feedback,” Dan Sider said. “I imagine that some of these folks will say, ‘Yeah, that’s great, we should definitely preserve it.’ Others might have a very different reaction. And people might show up and say, ‘Hey, look, why didn’t you consider some other address?’ That’s the purpose of tonight.”