Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Commission approves revised renovation at 3751–3753 Twentieth Street amid strong neighborhood opposition
Summary
After extensive public comment raising concerns about scale, excavation and precedent, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for 3751–3753 Twentieth Street with conditions requiring material samples, a window schedule and reuse of existing brick; the vote was unanimous.
The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed renovation and rear addition at 3751–3753 Twentieth Street in the Liberty Hill Historic District.
Sponsor Justin McBain and his design team told the commission the project has been revised since a January hearing to address earlier concerns: the light well was removed, the rear addition was reduced and lowered, excavation was reduced, the rear yard was terraced and a hyphen detail was added to separate old and new construction. "We've also eliminated the light well," architect Shane said during the presentation, describing a 1'8" front egress window and a reduction of the rear addition by 1 foot 2 inches.
Neighbors and the Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association urged the commission to deny the expansion or require further scale reductions. Dr. Lisa Fromer, president of the Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association, said the modern rear massing would damage the district's character, arguing the additions were "virtually destroying our neighborhood." Other neighbors cited concerns about two‑story excavation, possible impacts to adjacent foundations, increased shadowing, drainage and disruption during construction.
Department staff recommended approval with conditions to ensure compatibility with the district. Staff's proposed conditions require material samples (including proposed wood siding), a window schedule and the salvage and reuse of retaining‑wall bricks where feasible. Commissioners discussed whether square‑footage arguments were relevant under Article 10 and focused on massing and visibility from the street. Several commissioners said the revised design reduced impacts seen at the January hearing and pointed to precedent for similar sympathetic interventions in the district.
Commissioner Pearlman, who served on the Architectural Review Committee that reviewed the revisions, said the project "complies with the Secretary of the Interior's standards" and that much of the new work would be hidden from public view. After a motion to approve with the staff conditions as read into the record, the commission voted 7–0 to adopt the Certificate of Appropriateness.
The conditions attached to the approval require the project sponsor to provide material samples and a window schedule prior to building permit review and to salvage and reuse historic retaining‑wall bricks in exterior repairs to the extent feasible. The approval does not relieve the sponsor of additional permits and any required zoning variances noted by staff.
The commission's action advances the project to subsequent permit and review steps; staff and the sponsor indicated they would follow up with the materials and schedule required by the decision.
