Commission pauses decision on 740 Tennessee after enforcement concerns; ARC and inspections ordered

The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission continued action on a certificate of appropriateness for 740 Tennessee Street after extended testimony about unpermitted work and neighbor impacts.

Planning enforcement staff told the commission that multiple exterior changes were completed without permits and that photographs suggest the building’s bay and roof line may have been altered. "All of the work at the building exterior that we're reviewing today were not reviewed by the planning department in a permit application, nor was it reviewed under a certificate of appropriateness," said Kelly Wong, code enforcement manager.

Neighbors and nearby residents described noise and safety problems. Tim Wright, who lives next door, said mechanical equipment in the passage between buildings was installed without consultation and "makes so much noise. Our son can't sleep when they run." Wright also said a solid, opaque gate would obscure sight lines and increase security risks.

The project sponsor’s counsel said the current team was retained to bring the property into compliance and that some items were self‑reported to staff. Project counsel Tom Tunney said the owner is "committed to bringing this property into full compliance" and that many revisions reflect efforts to reduce visible impacts.

Commissioners pressed staff and the sponsor for a clearer record, asking for façade and roof studies, interior access to verify construction, options to place equipment on the roof or inside, and a construction schedule. Staff recommended a package of modifications including relocation of exterior mechanical equipment, relocation of fire‑line piping, removal of interior walls that block window openings, and modification of a proposed 10‑foot solid gate to increase transparency.

The commission voted unanimously to continue the item to Nov. 15, 2023, and directed that the Architectural Review Committee meet on Nov. 1 to review a revised drawing package, site investigations and a proposed schedule of work. Commissioners also asked staff to conduct additional site inspections and to include final building‑permit special inspections before DBI sign‑off.

No final determination on the COA was made; the continued review will require the sponsor to provide detailed drawings and evidence of where and how mechanical equipment and other contested elements will be located or concealed.