Board upholds CEQA exemption for 72 Harper Street ADU project, tables motion to reverse

The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing and debate on an appeal of the Planning Department's categorical exemption determination for a project at 72 Harper Street that proposes conversion of a basement to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a three-story rear addition.

Appellants' attorney Brian O'Neil told the board the appellants supported the ADU conversion but opposed the vertical addition over the existing 1905 Queen Anne cottage. "The appellants fully support converting the basement of 72 Harper into an ADU. ... The appeal is about a gratuitous addition to a 1905 Queen Anne cottage that does not include any habitable space, but rather is designed to provide 16 foot vaulted ceilings and attic storage," O'Neil said.

Historic-preservation testimony from preservation architect Mike Garavaglia argued the planning department did not complete a formal historic resource determination before issuing the exemption and that the addition would be visible from the public right-of-way and could affect character-defining features such as the gable roof form.

Planning Department staff, represented by Deputy Director Rich (identified in the hearing as Rich Scribe/department staff), replied that the property is designated category B (more than 45 years old but not yet classified as a historic resource) and that the department's review found the proposed rear addition is set back 19 feet 5 inches from the front façade, will not remove character-defining features visible from the public right-of-way, and therefore qualified for a class 1 exemption ("existing facilities") under CEQA. Planning staff noted the project adds approximately 1,091 net new square feet, with a maximum height of 30 feet, and that the Planning Commission previously reviewed the project and declined discretionary review by unanimous vote.

The project sponsor, homeowner Julie Park, described the work as a family-focused renovation and the ADU as housing for mobility-impaired relatives. Park said the front façade would not change and that the rear roof-raising provides minimum required ceiling height for habitable rooms. "This is a home for my family," Park said.

After public testimony and questioning of Planning staff, Supervisor Mandelman moved to approve item 22 (affirming the Planning Department's categorical exemption) and to table items 23 and 24 (the conditional reversal and a direction to prepare findings). The motion passed with the board voting to approve item 22 and to table the other items.

Action details: On the motion to approve item 22 and table items 23 and 24, the board's roll call produced votes described in the hearing record as 10 ayes and 0 noes (Supervisor Melgar was absent); the clerk recorded the motion as approved.

Discussion vs decision: The hearing included technical debate about whether a written historic-resource evaluation was required under the city's preservation bulletins and whether the addition would be visible from the public right-of-way. The formal board decision was to uphold Planning's exemption (item 22) and to table the motions to reverse or require findings (items 23 and 24).

Implementation and next steps: Planning staff will proceed consistent with the board's action. The ADU is ministerial under state law and Planning staff said the department would process the ADU separately as required by law; the board did not direct any additional studies at this meeting.

Ending: The board affirmed the Planning Department's environmental determination for the Harper Street project and deferred further motions to reconsider that determination.