Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landmark Nomination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic‑preservation commission declines to add Tennessee Street nomination to work program after neighborhood plea
Summary
After public comment and competing consultant reports, the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously not to add the community‑filed landmark nomination for 815–825 Tennessee Street to its work program, concluding staff and outside evaluations did not demonstrate individual landmark significance.
The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission declined to add the community‑filed landmark nomination for 815–825 Tennessee Street to its landmark designation work program, voting unanimously 5–0 after hearing public comment and competing consultant analyses.
Shannon Ferguson of the Planning Department told commissioners that multiple prior evaluations and staff analysis find the property does not meet Article 10 criteria for individual landmark designation and that the Nineteenth Street wall features are business signs rather than murals. "Department staff finds that the subject property does not rise to the level of individual significance as required under Article 10 of the Planning Code," Ferguson said.
Neighborhood supporters urged more time for review. "We feel like we have been misled by the then developer…we don't even feel that we can do that nor do we feel that the staff did their due diligence on reviewing those evaluations," Janet Carpinelli, president of the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association, told the commission when asking for a continuance so the applicant could amend the nomination.
The project sponsor, Jackie Braver of DM Development, said the sponsor commissioned multiple Historic Resource Evaluations and staff reports and that "all four" expert evaluations concur the statements of significance in the nomination are unsupported.
Commissioners debated two options: continue to allow the applicant to amend the filing, which could delay the entitled project and hold building permits, or decide now whether to add the property to the commission's workload. Staff noted that initiation of a landmark would trigger a 180‑day hold on permits; conversely, continuing without initiating designation would leave the project to proceed. After discussion, the commission moved, seconded and approved a motion not to add 815–825 Tennessee Street to the landmark designation work program.
The action does not preclude future filings or further information being presented; it signals the commission will not prioritize initiating designation for this nomination in the current work program. The decision was procedural (work‑program placement) and not an adjudication by the Board of Supervisors, which would make any final designation decision.
