SEC. 4. RELATION TO PLANNING CODE AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
(a) Article 10 of the Planning Code is the basic law governing historic preservation in the City and County of San Francisco. This ordinance, being a specific application of Article 10, is
both subject to and in addition to the provisions thereof.
(b) Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this ordinance, nothing in this ordinance shall supersede, impair or modify any Planning Code provisions applicable to
property in the Duboce Park Historic District, including but not limited to existing and future regulations controlling uses, height, bulk, lot coverage, floor area ratio, required open space,
off-street parking and signs.
(Added by Ord. 107-13 , File No. 130070, App. 6/13/2013, Eff. 7/13/2013)
SEC. 5. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE.
The Duboce Park Historic District is a three-block residential enclave in the Duboce Triangle neighborhood that is immediately adjacent to and shares a common development history
with Duboce Park, a small civic park. The district is comprised of 87 residential buildings and the stone steps and Serpentine rock retaining walls at the three interior block park entrances:
Carmelita, Pierce, and Potomac Streets. The district is significant for its unusual development history and architectural expression, as described below.
The Duboce Park Historic District is significant for the unusual development history of the contested tract of land upon which it was built and the way in which the contested nature of the
tract impacted the district's physical appearance and connection to the adjacent park. The tract (formerly known as the Public Reservation, Hospital Lot, and Marion Tract) was subject to a
decades-long series of court battles over legal ownership, with the City of San Francisco losing half of its claim to the land to the German Savings and Loan Association in the late 1890s.
After acquiring title to half of the tract, the bank subdivided the land, carved out interior block streets, and sold lots to builders who developed the residential portion of the tract. The lots
sold quickly and a handful of builders immediately began developing the parcels. Due to the delay in development caused by the litigation, construction dates for the vast majority of
contributing resources within the district range from 1899 to approximately 1902. This short period of development and limited number of builders resulted in a remarkably uniform
streetscape o