Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 218 Union Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission upholds planning staff on 218 Union Street parapet/firewall appeal
Summary
The Historic Preservation Commission denied an appeal Nov. 6 and affirmed an administrative certificate of appropriateness for a 42-inch parapet/firewall at 218 Union Street, finding the work non-visible and consistent with applicable preservation standards; the vote was 4–0.
The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission on Nov. 6 denied an appeal and affirmed an administrative certificate of appropriateness for work at 218 Union Street, voting unanimously 4–0.
Planning staff presented the appeal, explaining that the administrative certificate of appropriateness (ACOA) authorized a non-visible, 42-inch wood-clad parapet/firewall atop the building’s roof and recommended denial of the appeal because the project conforms to Article 10 of the Planning Code and the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic resources.
John Votruba, identified in the hearing as a (former) owner of 218 Union Street, described the prior firewall as a freestanding, fire-resistant wall and provided photographs and permit references in the project packet. Richard Green, appearing as appellant and describing himself as the brother of a neighboring owner, challenged the proposal and raised technical objections: he said the plans mixed parapet and firewall code requirements; he argued a firewall cannot be built on a deck and asserted the design could block lot-line windows and impede siding maintenance.
Planning staff clarified the Commission’s role in appeals: a vote to deny the appeal affirms the administrative determination and allows building permit review and subsequent review by DBI (Department of Building Inspection) and other city agencies on building-code matters; a vote to grant the appeal would re-calendar the item for a full COA hearing. After commissioners discussed visibility, contribution to the Telegraph Hill landmark district, and whether the proposal met Secretary of the Interior standards, the Commission voted to deny the appeal, effectively allowing the administrative ACOA to stand and permitting the applicant to proceed to building-permit review.
The Commission’s action addresses only whether staff properly followed the delegated review procedures; building-code compliance and any DBI enforcement remain subject to separate review.
