Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Preservation Alternatives Firestation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews preservation alternatives for fire station site at 447 Battery/530 Sansom; no decision
Summary
The commission reviewed preservation alternatives and public comment for a proposed mixed-use tower and relocated fire station that would demolish an Article 10 landmark at 447 Battery Street. Staff will include additional alternatives discussion in the draft EIR; no final action was taken.
The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed preservation alternatives for the proposed redevelopment that would relocate Fire Station 13 to 447 Battery Street (adjacent to 530 Sansom) and demolish an Article 10–listed building, but the meeting produced no decision. The project team presented a range of alternatives and the commission provided guidance and asked staff to include additional discussion in the draft environmental impact report.
Planning staff said the current proposal replaces a previously approved design and would build a mixed-use tower on the western portion of the site with a new, standalone fire station at 447 Battery. Jonathan Vimmer, department staff, said the analysis before commissioners focused on demolition and replacement of 447 Battery because the previously approved plan that integrated a fire station under a tower was no longer feasible in the developers' assessment. Architect Mark Schwetman explained structural and programmatic challenges: the building's column bays, ceiling heights and clearance needs for fire apparatus make it difficult to fit functional fire-vehicle bays entirely within the existing masonry building while preserving its interior and most of its exterior.
The sponsor's representatives said they explored alternatives including (a) no project, (b) preserving the existing building and siting the fire station at another parcel the sponsor controls, (c) partial preservation (retaining facades on two sides while reconstructing floor levels and excavating under the structure), and (d) building the station on the existing parcel with new construction inside a preserved shell. The project team said those alternatives either would not provide required truck clearances, seismic performance for an "essential services" facility, or the programmatic space required by the fire department.
Public comment included San Francisco Heritage urging full preservation alternatives be considered in the DEIR. Commissioners asked technical questions about whether a fire station's structural and seismic requirements could be satisfied within the existing masonry envelope, whether other city-owned or privately controlled sites had been considered as alternatives, and what process would govern a potential decertification or delisting of an Article 10 landmark. Deputy City Attorney Andrea Ruiz Espide said landmark designation itself is created by ordinance and any delisting would involve separate legislative steps; commissioners were told they would see this matter again if legislative or legal steps to alter landmark status were pursued.
Planning staff and project sponsors said they will include the preservation alternatives and additional documentation (including why potential off-site parcels were not feasible and alternative configurations considered and rejected) in the draft EIR. The commission did not vote on a preferred alternative at the Jan. 15 hearing; commissioners asked staff to ensure the draft EIR addresses the feasibility and rationale for alternatives rejected by the sponsor and to document the availability (or lack) of alternative sites in the study area.
