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, August 4, 2010

 

 

12:30 P.M. 

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

 

Regular Meeting

 

 

 

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT:             Damkroger

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT CHASE AT 12:33 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  John Rahaim – Planning Director, Tim Frye – Acting Preservation Coordinator, Pilar LaValley, Tara Sullivan, Michael Jacinto, Rick Cooper, Sophie Hayward, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

 
 

A.         PUBLIC COMMENT

 

SPEAKERS:   Mike Buhler, new Executive Director of S.F. Heritage - introduced himself and gave a brief summary of his professional background.

 

B.        STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

1.         Discussion of HPCLandmark Designation Work Program

 

Acting Preservation Coordinator Frye made these points:

Planning Department (Dept.) requested the HPC to develop their own Designation Work Program for Fiscal Year 2010-2011

The allotted FTE for Designation Work Program is 2080 staff hours.  It includes:

        Non-productive hours like sick leave, holidays, and weekly staff meetings. 

        Approximately 55 of the FTE hours have been used to date on the Appleton/ Wolfard Library designations.

        Other outstanding libraries initiated by the HPC; eligible resources identified in recent surveys; and the work loads associated with each of the designations

The HPC may want to consider passing a resolution that identifies the priorities of this Commission.  The HPC may also want to consider scheduling a future hearing to solicit requests from the public regarding ­­­­Article 10 designations.

The Dept. proposed a quarterly reporting structure to monitor resource allocations for landmark designations and to allow the HPC and the Dept. to prioritize these designations as appropriate.  The Dept. would like to present what the structure would look like to HPC in late October or early November.

The Dept. would like to confirm if any of the Landmark Board’s Work Program should be carried over to the new fiscal year.

 

In conjunction with requesting HPC to develop their own Designation Work Program, Mr. Frye gave a brief summary on how the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) had identified and prioritized landmarks:   In 1998 the Dept. established the Landmark Designation Work Program to identify 8 to 10 buildings, structures, sites, districts, objects that were potentially eligible for designation as city landmarks.  In 1999 and 2000, the Landmarks Board set priorities for the selection of potential landmark designations.  Those priorities were to address and engage the cultural and social history of San Francisco; to focus on unrepresented or undeveloped neighborhoods in the program; to involve communities of people -- be it ethnic communities, communities of interest, or cultural communities in the designation process; and to focus on the recognition of public spaces, common grounds, and architecturally significant buildings.    It was a common procedure for the Landmarks Board to agendize an item soliciting potential designations from the public, the Department, or other commissions.

 

SPEAKERBradley Wiedemier, Architectural Historian in San Francisco:  He suggested to the HPC that the last remaining waterfront block of buildings in the Central Seawall District, 101-190 Stewart Street to 100 – 198 the Embarcadero is a district that should be considered to be put on the work program.  This block, containing 45-foot wide lots, is under tremendous pressure for development because of it location to the waterfront.

 

Commissioner Wolfram asked had any analysis been done for under-represented neighborhoods, building types, and building periods.  He suggested it is a good time to focus comprehensively on what’s been landmarked in buildings and districts in the City now and to see where the missing pieces are in neighborhood districts and building types.  He asked about the status of the existing work program that was under the LPAB.  He commented that the HPC needs to be careful in asking for public solicitation because there was a certain level of frustration from being ignored [in the past].  Mr. Frye responded that some landmark information was in the annual Certified Local Government Report.  For a comprehensive look at what’s been landmarked, he suggested Dept. staff could work with their GIS specialist to provide HPC some maps and general description of each landmark and districts.  The information generated may help to target areas for initiation of landmark designation.  In regards to the status, he mentioned an earlier report prepared by Ms. Tam for the HPC that had everything on the 2006-2007 LPAB Work Program that shows between 10% to 25% completed.  The case reports and designations reports from the public may need additional work to be deemed complete though.  Commissioner Martinez was concerned that too much of a study might exhaust the allotted resources.  Maybe there could be something that mapped out existing landmarks with the construction dates and location of each landmark as a cursory symbol categorization that talk about their significance.

Commissioner Matsuda didn’t see from the report where some communities that did not make the list might definitely have potential resources that should be considered.  She wanted to know how the designation process took place and who was contacted, particularly for communities that are usually considered under-represented.  Mr. Frye responded that the process of initiation was largely was left to the LPAB, the Dept. and the Board of Supervisors (BOS).  For HPC’s landmark work program, outreach to the public and communities could be improved as part of the public education.  Commissioner Martinez said there was a concern that the southern and the western part of the City started to be more represented, but he didn’t remember any specific mechanism to try to do that other than favoring those items which just happened to show up just because somebody brought them to the then LPAB.

Commissioner Martinez expressed concern about prioritizing landmarks of the 2006-2007 Work Program from the LPAB at this hearing and suggested calendaring the discussion when actually there are photos and information on them.  He added that part of the discussion in prioritizing should also deal with development pressure on these landmarks and perhaps the state of decay.

Director Rahaim confirmed that what he is hearing from Commissioners is to take a fresh look, do more outreach, and how it should be done.  He suggested that one way was to look at existing landmarks and existing districts; and another was to look at existing survey areas which have lots of information as well.  He thought development pressures came primarily from within the area that the Dept. is working on or has recently done neighborhood plans for.  He suggested starting the discussion with a hearing item with a series of maps of existing and proposed survey areas and development pressures and see where it would go from there.

Commissioner Chase agreed with Director Rahaim that the Commission probably should take a slightly different look at needs and demands and how to approach this with the new Commission.  He expressed that often times people who had the energy and resources were able to bring items forward to the Commission to address their interests -- either they like the building or they had the intent for development.  The larger view was how to relate this to the resources in the City.  The more specific issues around development were the South of Market area, for instance.  Evaluations done over time had said there are potential districts available.  If there are resources within those potential districts that needed to be considered, he thought that was one way to begin the discussion around individual sites.

 

NOTE: The discussion would be calendared sometime around fall of 2010.

  

C.        MATTERS OF THE COMMISSION

 

2.         President’s Report and Announcements:  None

 

3.         Consideration of Adoption:

              a.        Draft minutes of Regular Hearing of July 7, 2010

 

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Approved, with the correction to the date on 8/4/10 agenda

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

ABSENT:           Damkroger

 

4.         Disclosures:  None

 

NOTE: Commissioner Secretary Avery responded to Commissioner Wolfram’s inquiry that discussion on Disclosures would be brought back to the HPC together with the draft HPC’s Rules and Regulations later in the year [September].

 

5.        Commissioner Comments/Questions: None                                                           

 

D.        REGULAR CALENDAR

 

6.         2009.0880E                                                                    (P. LaValley: 415/575-9084)

2100 MISSION STREET, southwest corner of 17th and Mission Streets, in Assessor’s Block 3576, Lot 001.  Presented for review pursuant to the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Permit Review Procedures for Historic Resources. The proposed project is to demolish an existing, one-story, industrial/commercial building (dba Dollar Store), and construct a six-story residential over commercial and parking building.  The subject property is located within the Mission Street NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) District with a 65-B Height and Bulk limit.  The Department is processing an Environmental Evaluation application and Historic Resource Evaluation Report for the project.

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

 

PRESENTER:   Stan Saitowitz – Natoma Architects

                           Frederic Knapp – Knapp Architects

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Accepted staff findings for the evaluation of the historic building and forwarded HPC comments about the new building.

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

ABSENT:           Damkroger

MOTION NO:    M0075

 

7.         2010.0080T                                                                     (T. Sullivan: 415/558-6257)

Amendments to the Planning Code, including but not limited to Sections 121.2, 136.1, 151, 185, 186, 201, 204.2, 205, 205.1, 205.3, 207.2, 209.3, 209.8, 217, 249, 303, 309, 311, 340, 317, 602.25, 602.26, 607.1, 790.44, 803.2, 803.3, 3 890.133, 890.44, 703.2, and various sections of Articles 7, 10, and 11.  Ordinance sponsored by the Planning Department that would amend the Planning Code.  The proposed amendments are mainly clerical clean-up in nature, with Sections 121.2, 136.1, 151, 185, 186, 201, 204.2, 205, 205.1, 205.3, 207.2, 209.3, 209.8, 217, 249, 303, 309, 311, 340, 317, 602.25, 602.26, 607.1, 790.44, 803.2, 803.3, 3 890.133, 890.44, 703.2, and Articles 7, 10, and 11 being amended.  The Planning Commission will hear and act on this item on August 5th.

(Cont’d from 7/21/10 hearing)

Recommendation: Approval of Proposed Ordinance with modifications to Board of Supervisors.

SPEAKERS:     Joan Wood:  concerned about revisions to Sections 311, 10 & 11 and thought the items should be postponed at least 60 days.  Mike Buhler, from SF Heritage:  requested to continue the item; a red-line version of the code revision be distributed; clarification of how a continuance if recommended by the HPC would impact the process of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors’ review.  He asked the commissioners to curtail discussion to non-substantive changes.  Aaron Peskin:  stated that Articles 10 and 11 are inconsistent with the Charter and applauded the Dept. and the HPC in attempting to find a way to reconcile them with the Charter; made comments on Sections 1006.3 – Notices and 1004.4 – Designations; made reference to dual process for tenant’s right to appeal and stated there are 10-day, 15-day, 20-day periods to the Board of Appeals; thought that to deal with substantive issues later was not the right approach; agreed with others that the changes should be combined into one revision; thought all should work together to have one voice; conforming Articles 10 and 11 is likely to be the only substantial work that is done over the next decade or two.   Gee Gee Platt:  asked for a red-lined and cohesive revision. She urged the HPC not to go ahead with this item today.  She asked the qualifications for the commissioners be put into the code and not the Charter.

 

NOTE:               Planner Ms. Sullivan discussed her Item on the various sections in particular Article 10 with the Commissioners.   Discussion on Article 11 was continued to the next hearing because of time constraints.  Commissioner Martinez requested a clean copy of Articles 10 with what’s been discussed.  Commissioner Wolfram requested that the whole code clean-up be in one package to the Board of Supervisors.

 

ACTION:            Continued the item to discuss Article 11 on August 18, 2010.

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

ABSENT:           Damkroger

 

8.         2006.0868E                                                                      (M. Jacinto: 415/575-9033)

800 PRESIDIO - southeast corner of Presidio Avenue and Sutter Streets (Assessor's Block 1073, Lot 13) The project sponsors, Booker T. Washington Community Services Center in association with the San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing, propose to demolish the existing 12,600-square-foot Booker T. Washington Community Center building, presumed an historic resource for purposes of environmental review and to construct a mixed-use structure, which would replace and enlarge the community/recreation center and include new residential units. The project would encompass approximately 70,000 square feet of space on six levels, five above grade and one below at a height of 55 feet along Presidio Avenue. The roughly 19,000 square-foot community center space would accommodate the center’s current and future programs and would also include a gymnasium, meeting space, and several classrooms. The project would include 47 residential units in a mix of unit sizes, half of which would be designated below market rate (BMR) rental housing for emancipated foster youth and the other half BMR units available to both individuals and families. The project proposes 22 parking spaces in a basement garage accessible from a proposed curb cut on Sutter Street. The subject property is within an RM-1 Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The sponsor seeks to amend the Planning Code by establishing a "Presidio-Sutter Special Use District" (SUD) to modify building height and bulk, density, off-street parking, year yard configuration, and open space requirements. The proposed SUD would necessitate text and map amendments (rezoning), which would require approval by the Board of Supervisors.

 

Note: This public hearing is intended to assist the Commission in its preparation of comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Comments made by members of the public at this hearing will not be considered comments on the DEIR and may not be responded to in the Final EIR (FEIR).  The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the DEIR on August 5, 2010.  Written comments on the DEIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., August 10, 2010.

 

Preliminary Recommendation: The Historic Preservation Commission will discuss the 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).

 

PRESENTERS:         Pat Scott, Executive Director:  talked about the services provided to foster youth.  Steve [Allen], Project Architect:  gave a synopsis of the building.

 

SPEAKERSin opposition:   Steve Williams

 

ACTION:            The Commission expressed that the draft EIR was adequate per CEQA and did not feel it necessary to draft a letter.  However, they did make comments that staff will forward to the ERO that did not detract from the document’s adequacy.

 

9.         2007.0903E                        (R. Cooper: 415/575-9027, S. Hayward: 415/558-6372)

Redevelopment Plan for the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island ProjectThe Treasure Island Development Authority, the redevelopment agency for the project, is proposing a Redevelopment Plan for the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Project (Redevelopment Plan) that would provide the basis for redevelopment of the portions of Naval Station Treasure Island, still owned by the Navy, once they are transferred to the Treasure Island Development Authority.  The proposed Redevelopment Plan would be carried out by Treasure Island Community Development, LLC.  The Proposed Project would include development on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island of up to 8,000 residential units; up to 140,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of new commercial and retail space; up to 100,000 sq. ft. of new office space; adaptive reuse of three historic buildings on Treasure Island with up to 311,000 sq. ft. of commercial, retail, and/or flex space; about 500 hotel rooms; rehabilitation of the historic buildings on Yerba Buena Island; new and/or upgraded public and community facilities; new and/or upgraded public utilities; about 300 acres of parks and public open space including shoreline access and cultural uses such as a museum; new and upgraded streets and public ways; bicycle, transit, and pedestrian facilities; landside and waterside facilities for the Treasure Island Sailing Center; landside services for an expanded marina; and a new Ferry Terminal and intermodal Transit Hub.  Construction and buildout of the proposed Development Plan would be phased and would be anticipated to occur over an approximately 15- to 20-year period.

 

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 August 12, 2010.  Written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00pm on August 26, 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).

 

RECUSED:        Commissioner Wolfram

 

SPEAKERS:      None

 

ACTION:            The Commission expressed that the draft EIR was adequate per CEQA and did not feel it necessary to draft a letter.  However, they did make comments:  the gun has significance; concern was expressed that any development might visually block Building One on the island; and there should be some display of the military history of the island on the property.

 

ADJOURNMENT:   3:51 P.M.

 

The minutes was proposed for adoption at the Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, September 1, 2010

ACTION:           Approved

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

Last updated: 9/13/2010 2:13:17 PM