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

Skip to page body
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco





Meeting Minutes


Hearing Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Wednesday, June 16, 2010



12:30 P.M. 




Regular Meeting




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




STAFF IN ATTENDANCETim Frye – Acting Preservation Coordinator, Shelley Caltagirone, AnMarie Rodgers, Bill Wycko,  Pilar LaValley, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary









Don Trennert – Middle Polk Neighborhood Association, re: Requested the HPC to weigh in the Environment Impact Report (EIR) and to review this case.

Siu-Mei Wong – Requested the HPC to recommend landmarking Sacred Heart Church so it could be preserved and protected during renovation/ construction.

Aaron Goodman – Urged HPC to attend and raise their concern related to Parkmerced at the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow.

Kathy Howard – Golden Gate Preservation Alliance, re: Talked about the Recreation and Park (Rec & Park) current policies; notified HPC that Rec & Park is working on a miniature golf course that may or may not be at Golden Gate Park; reminded the HPC to complete the Beach Chalet Athletic Fields letter if they have not done so; asked that Rec & Park to come before HPC for proposals that affect Golden Gate Park landmarks.

Chris Folker – Resident of 45 Lloyd Street next to Duboce Park District, re:  Planned filing an application to put landmark status on the 100-130 years old trees in a vacant lot near his resident. He asked support from Board of Supervisors, HPC, or City Department head.  He also requested to give Department of Public Work time to evaluate the trees historic and significant values to determine if trees meet criteria for landmark status.

David [Aldrid] – Resident of San Francisco, re:  He has a deep concern about the Park being parceled out and asked if the HPC has a general historical preservation oversight aspect to protect and preserve the general sense and legacy of Golden Gate Park.




Acting Preservation Coordinator Frye:

Sacred Heart Church – Planning Department had received calls from the community about possible interior work and the removal of the rose windows at Sacred Heart Church.  Since then Building Department had inspected the condition of the site and issued a stop-work order; the Planning Department had issued an enforcement notice; the Board of Supervisor had a resolution - urging the owner to comply with the stop-work order, and a Deputy City Attorney had been assigned to this case.  When more information was gathered, Planning Staff would present it to the HPC.




1.         President’s Report and Announcements


Commissioner Chase:

Last week Commissioners Chase and Hasz met with Phil Ginsberg, Director of Recreation and Park Department, and some of his staff to discuss concerns on how Beach Chalet Athletic Fields was handled.  Mr. Ginsberg assured them that Recreation and Park would bring proposals for Golden Gate Park to HPC for review and would keep HPC updated on both the built and cultural resources in the Park. Commissioners Chase and Hasz have had the opportunity to build a bridge with Recreation & Park, and made an opportunity for HPC to understand future developments and their budgetary process in the Park over the coming years.


2.        Discussion of Options for Draft Rules Regarding Ex-Parte Communications and Disclosure


This item was for discussion only and will be brought back at another time.

SPEAKER:        None


3.         Consideration of Adoption:

              a.        Draft minutes of Regular Hearing of May 5, 2010


ACTION:            Approved for adoption.

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


4.         Disclosures


Commissioners Damkroger and Buckley met with Fairmont Hotel’s sponsor.

Commissioners Chase and Hasz met with the Director and a member of Recreation and Parks Department.


5.         Commissioner Comments/Questions

Commissioner Buckley

1) Sacred Heart Church – He liked to know what HPC could do to support Church at this point.  Commission Damkroger suggested local landmarking of Sacred Heart Church could start from looking at the recently listed National Register nomination for the building to pull together a local landmark designation for submission to Planning Department.  Mr.  Frye pointed out that the National Register for the building is on the eligibility list only because the owner objected to the nomination prepared by Chris VerPlanck.  Commissioner Martinez thought HPC could initiate landmark designation.  He stated that HPC has the power to initiate what it pleases and doesn’t need to wait for the public to submit something to the Planning Department.  He would like to calendar a discussion on the initiation of Sacred Heart Church so that HPC could bring the owner to the hearing for a discussion. 

2) Larkin Street – He suggested HPC to look at State law which prohibits landmarking the church because it is being sold by a religious organization to a private entity.  He suggested and later volunteered to write a letter in time for the June 24 Planning Commission hearing to tell them that HPC has an interest to comment, to ask them to look at how the proposal for Larkin Street has evolved over time, and to put off hearing the project.  Commissioner Damkroger supported HPC to send a comment letter regarding Larkin Street to the Planning Commission and also to note in the letter that LPAB had previously commented on it.  She suggested that it would be worthwhile for the HPC to review those comments.  Commissioner Chase requested Planning staff to provide previous comments from Landmark Preservation Advisory Board to HPC, and concurred with Commissioner Buckley to draft the letter, and other commissioners to weigh in before sending it to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Damkroger

3)  Tree in the garden - She has an interest in the issue of the tree that went with the historic house brought up today by speaker Chris Folker – Resident of 45 Lloyd Street, and stated that HPC should give every opportunity for a thorough evaluation to determine it is significant or not.  Commissioner Martinez asked whether or not the [sub bureau] of Forestry under Department of Public Works was reviewing whether or not the trees are landmarked trees.  Mr. Frye responded that he did not know the details but would prepare something for the next HPC hearing.

Commissioner Wolfram

4)  Hunter’s Point Shipyard – He asked whether Planning staff had prepared an update from last week Planning and Redevelopment Commissions’ hearing on Hunter’s Point Shipyard for the HPC. Mr. Frye would prepare an update for the next HPC hearing.

 5) He asked whether or not HPC might want to calendar again a discussion on writing a letter expressing preservation concerns to BOS.


NOTE: HPC Policy on Disability Access for Public Buildings was added by Commissioner Chase under Matters of the Commission for discuss only.


Commissioner Martinez together with Commissioner Damkroger met with Susan Mizner of the Mayor’s Office of Disability (MOD) to hear their concerns, and later with Department and Building Inspection (DBI) to discuss interdepartmental review process on Certificate of Appropriateness (C of A).  Planning Department and DBI would work together to provide MOD the opportunity to review the design of accessibility before the (C of A) comes to HPC.  He felt the language before made HPC too responsible and not within its jurisdiction to decide on what was a good solution in terms of accessibility.  He felt that when the C of As came to HPC, they are deemed appropriate and accessible.  HPC would decide whether the design impacted historical resources or not.  If it did, HPC would then work out the design.  He read the four points from the DRAFT Policy for HPC and Access.


SPEAKERS:  Bob Planthold supported the draft policy.  He commented on captioning as the way of communication for the deaf and not having it on the screens could be a programmatic problem.  This was one example of disabilities and he urged how and why disability inputs should be considered for HPC’s deliberation on building and projects; Peggy Coster supported the draft policy and Bob Planthold’s comments.  She added even people with a disability couldn’t see somebody else’s need.  That was easy to miss because one has not experienced with those disabilities.


NOTE:  The Commissioners had a discussion on Point 3 regarding certified plans and Point 4 regarding wheelchair lifts of the Draft Policy that resulted with minor changes for the language before the HPC today.  This Draft Policy would be calendared for the next available hearing for a vote.





Item 5 was taken off the consent calendar and was heard as a regular item.


5.         2010.0322A                                                               (S. Caltagirone: 415/558-6625)

5 COTTAGE ROW, east side of Cottage Row between Bush and Sutter Streets.  Assessor’s Block 0677, Lot 037 - Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to install a pair of windows within a new opening at the ground floor level of the front façade.  The subject property is a contributing building within the Bush Street-Cottage Row Historic District.  The property is zoned RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval


ACTION:            Recused Commissioner Matsuda

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


SPEAKER(S):   None

ACTION:            Approved with modifications to adding a gap of one row of siding between the base window and the trim, and some differentiation in the profiles from the historic windows.

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

RECUSAL:        Commissioner Matsuda

MOTION NO:   M0067




6.        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 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 consider an Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Alioto-Pier that would amend the Administrative Code as described in the Ordinance with additional modifications as recommended by the Planning Department. The Commission will consider making recommendations on the proposed Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

(Continued from regular hearing of 6/2/10)


PRESENTER:   Bill Barnes on behalf of Supervisor Alioto-Piers

SPEAKER(S):   Aaron Goodman talked about problems with the process of noticing Negative Declaration (Neg Dec) for various projects.  He said it is important to look at the ordinance carefully that we are not disfranchising a large population.  Nancy Shanahan made the following points, that the Public Resources Code doesn’t say an appeal could be made only by someone who participated in a lower hearing; that the summary does not show all details of the amendments; that the way the ordinance is written is restrictive; that it ignores the Charter amendments that created the HPC to review all CEQA & [NAPA] documents on any project that impacts historic resources; that it is unclear how adequate notices for Cat Ex will be provided to the public; that establishing a 10/ 20 day limit is inappropriate unless the public knows when the Cat. Ex or other determinations have been made.  Rose [Hilson] from Jordan Park Improvements Association, said it was odd that notification is not required to inform the public for projects that are citywide in scope or where land exceed 5.5 acres.  Tim Cohen from San Francisco Housing Coalition pointed out that the EIRs have a definite appeal period whereas Cat Ex and Nec Dec have none.  It is not a healthy situation in which smaller projects having far less environmental impact than bigger projects requiring an EIR could be appeal at point, presumably until they are built.  Steve Atkinson from Lewis Forad Hamilton & Scripps said the lack of procedures and lack of review periods in the code has been a problem that persisted for a long time.  There is no appeal procedure for Neg Dec and Cat Ex.  They can be appealed until after the building permit has issued.  This problem needs to be dealt with and he urged not let it persist any longer.


ACTION:            Continued to July 7, 2010 with Commissioners’ comments, including the four points by Commissioner Buckley, and to receive Supervisor Alioto-Piers office’s response in a week.

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



7.         2007.1457E                                                                         (J. Battis: 415/575-9022)

1050 VALENCIA STREET,west side between 21st and 22nd Streets at the southwest corner of Valencia Street and Hill Street; Lot 008 of Assessor’s Block 3617 – Review of the proposed project, per the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan Interim Permit Review Procedures for Historic Resources, involving the construction of a mixed-use development with restaurant and residential uses. The proposed project would also include the demolition of an existing 1,670-square foot (sq ft), one-story commercial building constructed in 1970, originally in use as a Kentucky Fried Chicken and now occupied by Spork restaurant. The new proposed five-story, 55-foot-high, approximately 16,000-sq ft building would have 16 dwelling units over a ground-floor full-service restaurant. The existing building has one off-street parking/loading space, which would remain.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Adoption of motion regarding review of proposed project per the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan Interim Permit Review Procedures.

(Continued from regular hearing of 5/19/10)


ACTION:            Recused Commissioner Martinez

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


PRESENTER:   Stephen Antonaros updated progress of work requested by HPC from the May 19, 2010 hearing.


Peter Heinecke – Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association (LHNA), Mike Maier – LHNA, John Barbey – LHNA, John Levin – LHNA, Risa Teitelbaum – LHNA

ACTION:            Adopted as recommended and added HPC comments that staff to work with project sponsor and the community to find a compatible design.

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

RECUSAL:        Martinez

MOTION NO:   M0068


8.         2000.0618E                                                                    (P. LaValley: 415/575-9084)

801 BRANNAN/ 1 HENRY ADAMS, in Assessor’s Block 3783, Lot 001 and Assessor’s Block 3911, Lot 001.  Presented for review pursuant to the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Permit Review Procedures for Historic Resources. The proposed project involves two project sites: 801 Brannan Street (3783/001), which is a block bounded by Brannan, 7th, and 8th streets and Brannan Alley; and, 1 Henry Adams Street (3911/001), which is a block bounded by Henry Adams, Division, Alameda, and Rhode Island streets.  On both project sites, the existing buildings and surface parking would be demolished and new


mixed-use buildings would be constructed.  The new construction would be approximately 68’ in height and would consist of residential over commercial and parking.  The project sites are located within an UMU (Urban Mixed Use) District with a 68-X Height and Bulk limit.  The Department is processing an Environmental Evaluation application and Historic Resource Evaluation Reports for each project site for the project.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Adoption of motion regarding review of proposed project per the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan Interim Permit Review Procedures


ACTION:            Recused Commissioner Chase

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


PRESENTER:   David Baker presented an overview of massing study of the project.

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Adopted as proposed with mitigation measures as part of the comments.

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

RECUSAL:        Chase

MOTION NO:   M0069


Item 9 was heard after Item 10

9.         2008.0968L                                                                           (T. Frye: 415/575-6822)

APPLETON & WOLFARD LIBRARIES – Marina Branch Library, 1890 Chestnut Street: Assessor's Block 0469, Lot 001; North Beach Branch Library, 2000 Mason Street: Assessor's Block 0074, Lot 001. Review of the adequacy of the documentation for the post-war branch libraries designed by the firm Appleton & Wolfard and  Resolutions to approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to designate the Marina and North Beach Branch Libraries as San Francisco Landmarks under Article 10 of the Planning Code. The properties are zoned P (Public) and/or Open Space (OS).

Recommendation: Approval of the recommendation to designate the Marina Branch and the disapproval to designate the North Beach Branch Library.

(Continued from regular hearing of 5/19/10)



Aaron Goodman, Aaron Cohen, Zach Stewart, Nancy Shanahan, Nan Roth, June Osterberg, Sarah Kliban, Joan Wood, Howard Wong,


Bob Planthold, Peggy Costner, Elizabeth Diaz, Sue Blackman, Julie Christensen, Jill Bourne, Karen Manney-Brodek

ACTION:            Initiated designation for Marina and North Beach Branch Libraries at this hearing but the language for a vote in future hearing to be scheduled.

AYES:                Buckley, Martinez, Matsuda, Damkroger

NAYS:                Hasz, Wolfram, Chase


10.       2009.0457ACE                                                          (S. Caltagirone: 415/558-6625)

1 LORAINE COURT, San Francisco Memorial Columbarium, north end of court between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street. Assessor’s Block 1084, Lot 002 and Assessor’s Block 1132, Lot 001 - Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to expand the existing support building to the east and to construct two new single-story support buildings at the east and west perimeter of the site.  The subject property is Landmark No. 209 and it is listed on the Here Today Survey and the Planning Department 1976 Architectural Survey.  The site is zoned RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval


PRESENTER:   Kerry Mantez – Project Sponsor, Patrick Karney – Project Architect, Grey Miller – Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

SPEAKERS:      [Name] and Rose Hillson supported the project

ACTION:            Adopted as proposed

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

MOTION NO:   M0070





The minutes was proposed for adoption at the Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, July 21, 2010


ACTION:           Approved

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

ABSENT:          Damkroger


Last updated: 7/29/2010 10:55:03 AM