Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds planning department's categorical exemption for 2831'2833 Pierce Street after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing on whether a 1949 building at 2831'2833 Pierce Street is a historic resource, the Board affirmed the planning department's categorical exemption, finding no substantial evidence that the building meets California Register criteria.
The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on an appeal challenging the Planning Department's determination that the proposed alterations and additions at 2831'2833 Pierce Street are categorically exempt from CEQA. After presentations from the appellant, Planning Department staff and the project sponsor, the board voted to affirm the department's CEQA exemption determination.
The appellant argued that the 1949 building is a fully realized example of streamlined modern architecture by architect Conrad Kett and presented photographic comparisons and architectural‑feature lists. The appellant said the building embodies distinctive characteristics that warrant consideration as a historic resource.
Planning Department staff (Stephanie Cisneros and Deborah Dwyer) explained their preservation review process, said they required a historic resource evaluation from a qualified consultant, and summarized their finding that the building does not meet California Register criteria. Staff noted that while the structure includes some Streamline Moderne features, it lacks a cumulative expression of primary character‑defining elements and is not an outstanding example of the style. The department also said it solicited an opinion from Docomomo Northern California, which concurred with the department's finding.
The project sponsor's representative said the appellant did not supply new substantial evidence that would change the department's determination, characterizing the new materials as photographs and unsupported opinion rather than expert analysis.
Supervisor Stephanie moved to affirm the Planning Department's categorical exemption (item 48) and to table the related appeals motions (items 49 and 50). The board took the motion without objection and affirmed the exemption; items 49 and 50 were tabled. The board did not order additional environmental review based on the record presented at the hearing.
