Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Historic Preservation Commission denial for carriage-house conversion at 280 DeVisadero
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 3-2 to uphold the Historic Preservation Commission's denial of a certificate of appropriateness for a carriage-house conversion at 280 DeVisadero Street after debate over whether the proposed design met Secretary of the Interior standards and whether the structure’s condition justified demolition.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 27, 2011 upheld the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to disapprove a certificate of appropriateness for converting the carriage house at 280 DeVisadero Street into a residential unit.
At a public hearing, Planning Department representative Tim Frey told commissioners that the department, the former Landmarks Board and the Historic Preservation Commission had tried to craft a compromise design that would conform more closely with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and would avoid additional CEQA review. Frey said the department believed an approvable project was possible but that the appellant’s attorney declined the department’s revisions.
Applicant Richard Zillman argued the board should consider the project in the context of the overall site and the city’s housing goals and said the proposed design preserved historic elements while introducing a contemporary interpretation. “The Board of Appeals job is to consider all conditions including the city's goal of adding residential units,” Zillman said, and warned he would walk away rather than “dumb down” the design.
Commissioners split over how much deference to give the HPC and planning staff versus the value of architectural diversity. Several members noted the carriage house has extensive deterioration and structural issues, but Planning staff and the HPC contended the design as proposed would effectively result in de facto demolition and was not in conformance with preservation standards.
Commissioner Chris Huang moved to uphold the Historic Preservation Commission’s disapproval. On a roll call the motion carried 3-2, with President Kendall Goh, Commissioner Tanya Peterson and Commissioner Huang voting to uphold the denial and Vice President Michael Garcia and Commissioner Frank Fung voting against it.
The decision means the HPC disapproval of the certificate of appropriateness stands; the board’s written findings cite the project’s failure to meet applicable historic-preservation standards. The parties were advised the matter could be revisited only through the processes identified by Planning and the Historic Preservation Commission, and that any substantially different design or additional documentation (for example, engineering reports addressing demolition or structural failure) would require new review.
