Commission reviews preservation alternatives after developer proposes to replace landmark fire station site

The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission on Jan. 15 reviewed preservation alternatives for a development that would demolish the Jones Building at 447 Battery Street — listed under Article 10 — to accommodate a relocated fire station and a mixed‑use tower at 530 Sansom/447 Battery.

Jonathan Vimmer, planning staff, said the department’s analysis focuses on demolition and redevelopment of 447 Battery; the prior project iteration (which did not include 447 Battery) had received a mitigated negative declaration for CEQA purposes. The current proposal would relocate the city's fire station program to 447 Battery and construct a mixed‑use tower on the adjacent parcel.

Mark Schwetman, the project architect, described options the sponsor studied: (1) a no‑project alternative; (2) full preservation options where the fire station would be incorporated on the original site or atop the tower (not feasible for program and structural reasons); and (3) partial preservation that would retain limited facades while excavating and reconfiguring the interior to meet fire station vehicle bay and height requirements. Schwetman said the fire trucks’ clearance and the station’s required four vehicle bays create structural and vertical‑clearance conflicts with the existing masonry building that, in the sponsor’s view, prevent a full preservation solution while meeting the project’s program objectives.

Public commenters urged caution and stronger preservation. Woody Labounty, president and CEO of San Francisco Heritage, said the organization would advocate for full preservation alternatives in the environmental impact report and suggested affordable housing as a more compelling use for the site. Several neighborhood commenters requested more outreach and argued for exploring off‑site locations for the station.

Commission discussion focused on feasibility and process. Commissioners asked whether the masonry structure could meet essential‑services seismic performance and whether alternative sites had been considered. Project sponsor Matt Witty said potential off‑site locations were limited; sponsors surveyed the surrounding area and concluded very few parcels in the north waterfront could meet fire‑department operational and dimensional requirements. Planning staff said CEQA requires analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and that the draft EIR will present the sponsor’s study and staff comments. Joyce (Join) Everett, environmental planning staff, said the draft EIR will include the preservation alternatives and a written explanation for rejected alternatives; the planning commission or other decision makers could select a different alternative at a later hearing, but deciding that would require findings and, if significant impacts remain, potential mitigation or overrides.

Deputy City Attorney Andrea Ruiz Espide told commissioners that landmarks are created by ordinance and that if the city and board of supervisors were to consider removing or changing a landmark designation, the commission would be part of that process later; she said that process is separate from the CEQA review required for the project.

Commissioners asked staff to document additional alternatives and to include a discussion of why off‑site parcels were not feasible. Commissioners also requested that the draft EIR describe the sponsor’s effort to fit program into the existing building — including cantilever and core‑location concepts that were considered and rejected — so the public record shows the full scope of the alternatives analysis. Schwetman and the sponsor committed to retaining the site’s public artwork (the sculpture “Untitled”) in a publicly accessible location within the new fire station or building lobby.

No decision to approve or deny demolition was made. Planning staff will publish a draft EIR that includes the alternatives discussed; the commission will have further opportunity to review the DEIR when it is circulated.