In 2025, Rafael Mandelman, president of the board of supervisors, worked closely with the Planning Department and San Francisco Heritage to find ways to speed up and improve the city’s landmark designation process. Those recommendations were presented to Mayor Daniel Lurie for inclusion in the “Family Zoning Plan,” which has various development goals, including the addition of 82,069 units to the city by 2031.
On May 28, 2026, San Francisco Heritage joined Mayor Lurie and President Mandelman at a press conference to announce this commitment to streamline the legislative process and increase city-designated historic landmarks and districts.
Recent media pieces and proposed legislative amendments from District 5 supervisor Bilal Mahmood have mischaracterized this plan and preservation in general.
Here’s our general FAQ on the issue, the plan, and why it matters:
Why now?
So is this an Anti-Housing idea?
Who chooses these landmarks? Are there any safeguards?
How much of the city will be landmarked again? And how long will this take?
How can I help?
Why Now?
Historic designation in San Francisco has never been easy. After months, even years, of research and preparing a nomination, the legislative process of passing a landmark ordinance typically took more than a year of reviews and meetings at City Hall.
The first city landmarks were designated in 1968. Almost 60 years later, there are fewer than 400 individual landmarks and about 1,100 buildings listed as contributors in historic districts. Most of these were designated in the last century.
The number of designated historic properties in cities such as New York City, Boston, or Los Angeles ranges between 3–5%. San Francisco, recognized as one of the most beautiful and historically important cities in the world, has less than 1%.
The city has only become more historic since 1968. Since then, we have also acknowledged that historical significance goes beyond just architecture. Places like the Castro’s Rainbow Flag, the Japanese YWCA/Issei Women’s Building, and Sam Jordan’s bar in the Bayview are now city landmarks, but there are many other important places we don’t want to lose which are deserving of landmark status.
The value of landmarking lies beyond recognizing only architectural significance, and has increasingly been a tool to recognize places of cultural significance like the Issei Women’s Building in San Francisco’s Japantown, and the Carnaval Mural / Golden Dreams of the Mission (Landmark no. 313) on 24th Street in the Mission District.
The mayor’s Family Zoning Plan allows for higher height limits and increased density that are meant to incentivize housing construction, but they also increase the vulnerability of special and historic places to demolition.
New state streamlining programs to expedite housing production also take most of the decision-making process out of the hands of local government, increasing the chances of potentially historic places being lost without any review or consideration.
Landmark designation doesn’t freeze a property forever or mean it can’t be developed (or even demolished), but it does provide some local review ahead of any changes and is a valuable way to document the significance of a site for future generations.
So is this an Anti-Housing idea?
No. We just don’t want to lose the places San Franciscans love, at least not without any discussion.
Even doubling the current number of landmarks in the city would amount to around a single percentage point of San Francisco parcels. Meanwhile, 70,000 already-approved housing units are stuck in a development pipeline due to lack of financing and construction costs, not because of bureaucracy or landmark status.
And historic designation does not mean housing cannot be added to a site.
Some of the big housing projects that are under construction in the city have only “penciled out” because they incorporated properties with historic designation. Projects such as 1101-1123 Sutter Street (300 new homes, 103 affordable units), the Power Station (2,600 units, 30% below market rate), and the historic 1930 tower at 100 McAllister Street (addition of 80 housing units) have benefited from these tax credits.
We encourage exploration of more incentives to adaptively reuse landmark properties.
Who chooses these landmarks? Are there any safeguards?
City landmarks are made through a collaborative process with multiple checks along the way in which property owners, planners, commissioners, and the public can all have their say, with the supervisors and the mayor ultimately deciding. The timeline, even with this new streamlining proposal, is still fairly lengthy.
First, research and evaluation of the property has to be conducted by San Francisco Planning’s preservation staff, professionals who have advanced degrees and years of experience in historic preservation. Anyone can suggest a landmark candidate, but the analysis of eligibility is based on standards originating with the Department of the Interior.
Once the planners determine properties as eligible for historic status—and they reject many for various reasons—conversations are begun with the public, property owners, and the district supervisor offices.
Under state law, religious institutions can reject landmark status. This has happened for important sites like Sts. Peter and Paul Church in North Beach, St. Mary’s Cathedral in the Western Addition, and Temple Emanu-El in the Richmond District. Many homeowners have also asked to be excluded, and the Planning Department has in most cases pulled their properties from consideration.
This new streamlining process depends upon the district supervisor to formally initiate landmarking. Some supervisors have engaged and some have not. Each has the latitude to exclude properties for their own reasons.
Once the supervisor initiates a landmark or landmarks, consideration and recommendation has to go through the Historic Preservation Commission (members of which are nominated by the mayor), the Land Use Committee of the board of supervisors, then two meetings of the board of supervisors to consider the legislation, and ultimately the landmark ordinance need to be signed into law by the mayor.
The process is not hasty, not reckless, not unilateral, and not political.
Despite all these safeguards from multiple stakeholders to ensure worthy landmarks are chosen, Supervisor Mahmood is proposing a series of amendments which would make this whole process even more onerous, add more work for the Planning Department, and make the creation of a city landmark an almost impossible job.
Would that benefit San Francisco?
We are opposed to these amendments and hope you are too.
How much of the city will be landmarked again? And how long will this take?
The Planning Department’s stated goal of adding 2,500 properties to the city’s list of designated historic resources would nudge the total parcels with city historic designation to between 1% and 2%. The hope was to do this in five years.
Historic districts are notably difficult to research and to gain consensus for designation. Only three small districts (85 total properties) have been created in the last 12 years. So most of the initial efforts have been on identifying individual landmarks.
In 2026, the Planning Department, through a public process, has so far brought forward 65 properties for consideration. SF Heritage hopes that pace can accelerate, but right now we are a long way from getting 2,500 landmarks in five years.
How can I help?
Tell your district supervisor you support landmarking and oppose the amendments by Supervisor Mahmood. Let them know you agree with Mayor Lurie that “San Francisco doesn’t have to choose between growth and preservation.”
District 1, Connie Chan: chanstaff@sfgov.org
District 2, Stephen Sherrill: sherrillstaff@sfgov.org
District 3, Danny Sauter: SauterStaff@sfgov.org
District 4, Alan Wong: WongStaff@sfgov.org
District 5, Bilal Mahmood: MahmoodStaff@sfgov.org
District 6, Matt Dorsey: DorseyStaff@sfgov.org
District 7, Myrna Melgar: melgarstaff@sfgov.org
District 8, Rafael Mandelman: MandelmanStaff@sfgov.org
District 9, Jackie Fielder: Jackie.Fielder@sfgov.org
District 10, Shamann Walton: Shamann.Walton@sfgov.org
District 11: Chyanne Chen: ChenStaff@sfgov.org
Mayor Daniel Lurie: daniel.lurie@sfgov.org
Additional ways to contact supervisors and their staff can be found here.
More information:
Letters: Don’t blame SF housing crisis on landmarking when YIMBYS ignore real problem (SF Chronicle, August 11, 2026)
Planning Code Text Amendment: Landmark and Historic District Designation (August 5, 2026)
Mayor Lurie, President Mandelman Take Action To Protect San Francisco’s Historic Buildings
A landmark announcement (Special City, June 1, 2026)
More than one battle after another: building a movement for preservation (SF Heritage, January 2026)
