Board reverses planning department exemption for 476 Lombard after historic‑resource dispute; item continued for further review

The Board of Supervisors on April 13 took action on an appeal challenging the Planning Department's categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a residential addition at 476 Lombard Street. The appeal centered on whether the project may cause a "substantial adverse change" to a building the parties and staff acknowledge is an individually eligible historic resource.

Appellants presented an architectural historian, Catherine Petrin, who said the project "would cause a material impairment to multiple character defining elements of the building," and documented features she said were at risk including a distinctive roof element and the west facade's light wells. The project sponsor and its consultant, Page & Turnbull, countered that the rear roof form and side elevations are not character‑defining and that the project conforms with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.

Planning Department preservation staff told the board it had determined on July 15, 2020 that a Class 1 categorical exemption applied, concluding the project would not result in a significant impact to the historic resource after review against CEQA guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior guidance. Earlier on the hearing day the department asked for additional time, saying the appellants submitted a supplemental letter the morning of the hearing that raised new, more specific arguments about whether a rear roof structure is an original, character‑defining element; planning staff said it had not had time to fully evaluate the new material.

After presentations, public comment and rebuttal, Supervisor Peskin moved to table the department's exemption determination (item 23) and to adopt motions reversing the exemption (items 24 and 25) and directing preparation of findings. The motion was seconded and passed on a 10‑1 vote with Supervisor Melgar dissenting.

Effect of board action: by tabling affirmation of the exemption and adopting motions to reverse, the board instructed staff to prepare findings supporting a conditional reversal of the exemption determination, which will require the Planning Department to prepare an initial study or other environmental documentation if the reversal stands. The Planning Department asked for time to evaluate supplemental material received that morning; the board nevertheless voted to proceed with the reversal motion.

Key quotes from the hearing included the appellants' expert: "the proposed project would cause a material impairment to multiple character defining elements of the building," and Planning's environmental review officer Lisa Gibson acknowledging the department had received new evidence that warranted further review but had not completed that work before the hearing.

What happens next: Planning staff will draft findings consistent with the board's action; if those findings are adopted, the project will be subject to further environmental review under CEQA.

Vote: motion to table item 23 and move items 24 and 25 passed 10‑1 (Melgar no).