To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

 

SAN FRANCISCO

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

 

Meeting Minutes

 

Hearing Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

 

 

12:30 P.M. 

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

 

Regular Meeting

 

 

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:         Buckley, Wolfram, Martinez, Matsuda, Chase, Damkroger

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:           Hasz          

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT CHASE AT 12: 35 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCETim Frye – Acting Preservation Coordinator, Shelley Caltagirone, John Rahaim – Planning Director, Sophie Hayward, Pilar LaValley, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

A.         PUBLIC COMMENT

 

SPEAKERS:  None

 

B.        MATTERS OF THE COMMISSION

 

1.         Pending Articles 10 and 11 Planning Code amendments.

(Continued from regular hearing of 5/5/10.)

 

Director Rahaim stated the status of the legislation is still pending at the Board of Supervisors (BOS) since April of last year.  He asked the HPC how and what action the Planning Department should take to move it forward, or, whether the BOS would do that or not.  He suggested one possibility is to move Articles 10 and 11 separately if that would enable a discussion.  Another possibility might be to discuss the two sets of issues as a joint committee of the HPC and Planning Commissions.

Commissioner Wolfram asked if it would be worthwhile to do a reduced version of the language of Proposition J so that Article 10 and 11 actually reflect what’s in the Charter.  Another possibility might be if HPC just took the literal language of Proposition J and did maybe an interim change so at least Article 10 and 11 would reflect what’s in Proposition J.

Commissioner Martinez agreed separating Articles 10 and 11 for the purpose of discussion was a possibility since there wasn’t a lot of disagreement on Article 11.  He raised the point that there are actually four versions of the proposed draft – the original before the BOS, HPC’s, Planning Commission’s, and SPUR’s.  HPC needs to look at all four versions because the BOS will be looking at those.  If HPC has a discussion, it might be worthwhile to go over points of difference between the two commissions as a starting point and then the language of the other two competing version to those specific points.

Commissioner Buckley asked whether a committee of the commission or the full body of the commission has to be part of that conversation

Commissioner Chase said a joint review by HPC and Planning Department would be a way to start consolidating concerns and to reach a compromise on differences and open-end items amongst the commissions.  There is enough interest by all the commissioners that he thought all the members of each commission should participate because it will become the set of regulations in which all would operate under.  It is important enough to have a public hearing when we have these joint discussions. 

Director Rahaim responded that certainly there will be public hearings.  He asked whether or not to start with a smaller discussion and then bring it to hearing.

Commissioner Damkroger said perhaps looking at staff scheduling will help to decide whether a smaller discussion would be enough, unless Mr. Rahaim felt strongly about going to both commissions first.

Deputy Attorney Byrne brought to the attention of the HPC that there is either a Board rule or some other requirement of the BOS that if legislation is not acted within a certain amount of time it actually dies.  At this point, this legislation under the BOS rule could be dead and would need to be reintroduced.  She will get the information on what the deadline is for the Commission and have that available at the next hearing.

Commissioner Chase suggested it’s valuable to have the City Attorney’s information on the validity of the pending legislation at this point.

 

SPEAKER(S):  Peter Warfield – Library Users Association, re: He asked what the versions are, what they are called, and where those could be found, including the chart in the packet.

 

2.         Policy to address situations of “Demolition by Neglect” and related actions that allow historic properties to fall into disrepair.

 

Commissioner Martinez stated that whatever happened at 1268 Lombard Street, the current property owners would benefit from the demolition by neglect.  With this ordinance in place, it is less likely to happen, but still there is not an ultimate penalty for having it happen because there is still value in doing it.   That seems to him the outstanding issue.

Commissioner Chase – The concern he has is the blatancy and the evidence of active negligence found at 1268 Lombard Street.  It was intentional and yet there is no consequence currently within the City’s rules and regulations to either prevent that or to create penalties for that type of action.  It seems to him there would need to be an interest to develop legislation that would prevent that.

SPEAKERS: Rose Hilson – Jordan Park Improvement Association, re: The consequence needs to be either monetary or scorched earth or minimized the number of square feet on the lot; Peter Warfield – Library Users’ Association, re:  Not having a penalty for a wrong action is not only to leave a loop-hole but also encourage bad action.

 

3.         Draft a letter to the Planning Commission regarding the Candlestick Point / Hunters Point Shipyard EIR Alternatives.

 

SPEAKER:     Peter Warfield – Library Users’ Association, re:  He would like to see the materials distributed to the Commissioners prior to the meeting that he couldn’t find in the public file.  Wells Lawson, with the Office of Economic and Work Force Development, responded that the materials were made available to the public for some time.

ACTION:         Commissioner Wolfram volunteered to draft a letter to express concerns HPC has to the certification of the adequacy of the EIR by Redevelopment Planning Commissions.

RECUSED:     President Chase for work related reasons

AYES:             Buckley, Martinez, Matsuda, Wolfram, and Damkroger

ABSENT:        Hasz

 

4.         Disclosure

 

Commissioner Matsuda met with Mr. VerPlanck regarding the Tonga Room

Commissioner Martinez talked to Mr. Gladstone about 1268 Lombard Street.

Commissioner Damkroger emailed Mr. Knapp about Lombard, but didn’t connect, and contacted Nancy Shanahan about CEQA reform.

Commissioner Chase had a telephone conversion with Mr. Charles [last name] about 1269 Lombard

 

C.        CONSENT CALENDAR

 

5.        2010.0395A                                                                    (P. LaValley: 415/575-9084)

1 SOUTH PARK AVENUE, UNIT 407, southwest corner of South Park Avenue and 2nd Street, Assessor’s Block 3775, Lot 007.  Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace non-historic windows at penthouse, which was added to building in 2007.  The subject property is a contributing structure to the South End Historic District and is located within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District with a 65-X Height and Bulk limit.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval

 

SPEAKERS:   None

ACTION:         Approved

AYES:             Buckley, Martinez, Matsuda, Wolfram, Damkroger, and Chase

ABSENT:        Hasz

MOTION NO. M0066

 

D.        REGULAR CALENDAR

 

6.         2008.0021E                                                                 (S. Hayward: 415/558.6372 &

                                                                                          R. Cooper: 415/575-9027)

PARKMERCED -The proposed project is a long-term mixed-use development program to comprehensively re-plan and re-design the approximately 116 acre site.  The proposed project would increase the residential density, provide new commercial and retail services, provide new transit facilities, and improve existing utilities withinthe development site.  Of the existing 3,221 residential units that exist on the site, approximately 1,683 units located within the 11 existing towers would remain.  Over a period of approximately 30 years, the remaining 1,538 existing apartments would be demolished and replaced in a phased work program.  An additional 5,679 net new units would also be added to the site for a project total of 8,900 units.  Neighborhood-serving retail and office space would also be constructed as part of the proposed project.  The proposed new neighborhood core would be located within walking distance of all the residences within Parkmerced.  Small neighborhood-serving retail establishments would be constructed outside of the neighborhood core, in close proximity to residential units throughout the site.  A new school and daycare facility, fitness center, and new open space uses including athletic fields, walking and biking paths, a new organic farm, and community gardens would also be provided on the project site. The proposed project includes a series of transportation improvements including re-routing the existing M Ocean View line from its current alignment along 19th Avenue. The new alignment would leave 19th Avenue at Holloway Avenue and proceed through the new neighborhood core in Parkmerced

 

This public hearing is intended to assist the Commission in its preparation of comments on the Draft EIR. Comments made by members of the public at this hearing will not be considered comments on the Draft EIR and may not be responded to in the Final EIR.  The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR on June 17, 1010.  Written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00pm on June 28, 2010.

 

Preliminary Recommendation: The Historic Preservation Commission will discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and may provide oral comments or may direct staff to prepare written comments on the adequacy of the DEIR, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

 

SPEAKERS in opposition of the project: Inge Horton; Pierluigi Serrano; Aaron Goodman

SPEAKERS in favor of the project:  Mike Smith – Resident of Parkmerced and Member of Parkmerced Organization; Daniel W. Philip – President of Parkmerced Residential Organization; Jeanie Scott – Resident of Parkmerced; William Baumgardner – Transportation Engineer and Resident of San Francisco, Dan Brook – Resident of Parkmerced, Tim Colen – Executor Director of San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

NOTE:            Commissioner Damkroger will work with staff to draft a letter to the Planning Commission that expresses the concerns of the HPC.

RECUSED:     Commissioner Wolfram

 

7.         2009.0443DD and 2010.0165DD                                    (S. Caltagirone: 415/558-6625)

1269 LOMBARD STREET, - south side of between Polk and Larkin Streets; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 0501 - Request for Review and Comment by the Planning Commission on a project undergoing Mandatory Discretionary Review per Section 317 of the Planning Code. The project proposes to demolish the existing single-family, two-story building located at the rear of the lot and to construct two new single-family buildings, located at the front and rear of the lot on a property located within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: The Commission may direct staff to draft written comments of the Commission.

 

PRESENTER:    Charles Schultz provided history of the site.

                       Frederick Knapp - Architect, prepared the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE)

                        Brett Gladstone – represented the project sponsor

SPEAKERS in opposition of the project: Joe Butler, Architect; John [Haubers], Resident of 1265 Lombard Street; Frank Marrow, Owner of 1249 and 1251 Lombard Street, Rod Handerlin, Owner of 1263, 1265, and 1267 Lombard Street.

ACTION:         Staff was directed to send a letter to the Planning Commission expressing the concerns of the HPC

 

8.        2009.1180TZM                                                                 (T. Sullivan: 415/558-6257)

Amendments to Planning Code Section 128 (Transfer of Development Rights), San Francisco Zoning Map ZN01, and the Chinatown and Downtown Elements of the General Plan.  The proposed amendments will change the zoning of Block 0241, Lots 011 & 012 – 680 California Street, aka Old St. Mary’s Church – from Chinatown Mixed Use District to C-3-O; amending the Chinatown and Downtown Elements of the General Plan to reflect this rezoning; and amendments relating to Planning Code Section 128 to allow the transfer of TDR from any Individual Landmark located within a C-3 Zoning District to another lot within a C-3 Zoning District, and to require that proceeds from the sale of transferable development rights from certain Transfer Lots be spent on the rehabilitation and maintenance of the Transfer Lot property.  The Commission will make recommendations on the proposed Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

(Continued from regular meeting of March 17, April 7, and April 21, 2010)

Recommendation: Approval.

 

ACTION:         Recommended the ordinance proceed at the BOS and to allow the HPC to discuss broader ways of how this program might work.

AYES:             Buckley, Martinez, Matsuda, Wolfram, and Damkroger

RECUSED:     Chase

ABSENT:        Hasz

RESOLUTION NO:  R646

 

9.         2010.0336U                                                                    (A. Rodgers: 415/558.6395)

Amendments to Administrative Code Concerning CEQA Appeals and Notice.  [BOS File No. 10-0495].  Hearing of a proposed Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Alioto-Pier that would amend Administrative Code Chapter 31 to provide for appeals to the Board of Supervisors of environmental decisions and determinations under the California Environmental Quality Act, and provide public notice of such decisions and environmental documents. The Commission will make recommendations on the proposed Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

Recommendation: Approval with modifications.

 

SPEAKER:     Bill Barnes – on behalf of Supervisor Alioto-Pier, re:  Briefly talked about the appeal procedure and asserted that the HPC recommendation would be included in the CEQA Appeal process.

ACTION:         Continued to 6/16/10

AYES:             Buckley, Martinez, Matsuda, Wolfram, Damkroger, and Chase

ABSENT:        Hasz

 

 

E.         STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

None

 

F.         MATTERS OF THE COMMISSION

 

10.       President’s Report and Announcements

            None

 

11.       General historic preservation policies including local interpretations of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards and options to codify those interpretations.

(Continued from regular hearing of 5/5/10.)

 

ACTION:         Continued to 6/16/10 hearing

AYES:             Buckley, Martinez, Matsuda, Wolfram, Damkroger, and Chase

ABSENT:        Hasz

 

12.       Thresholds used to determine eligibility of historic districts.

(Continued from regular hearing of 5/5/10.)

 

ACTION:         Continued to 6/16/10 hearing

AYES:             Buckley, Martinez, Matsuda, Wolfram, Damkroger, and Chase

ABSENT:        Hasz

 

 

ADJOURNMENT:     4:39 P.M.

 

 

The minutes was proposed for adoption at the Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, July 7, 2010

 

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              Chase, Hasz, Martinez, Matsuda, Wolfram, Buckley

ABSENT:          Damkroger

 

Last updated: 7/16/2010 2:41:46 PM