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

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

September 21, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

 

Meeting Minutes

 

Hearing Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

 

12:30 P.M. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

 

Regular Meeting

 

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:         Chase, Damkroger, Hasz, Johns, Martinez, Matsuda, and Wolfram

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT CHASE AT 12:30 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCEKelley Amdur – Director of Current Planning, Pilar LaValley, Bill Wycko – Environmental Review Officer, Jessica Range, Sara Jones, Shelley Caltagirone, Tina Tam, Mary Brown, Sophie Hayward, Tim Frye – Preservation Coordinator, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

 

 

 

 

A.         CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

No item from this calendar was proposed for continuance.

 

B.        PUBLIC COMMENT

 

SPEAKERS:   Mike Buhler, SF Architectural Heritage, introduced Heritage’s new Preservation Project Manager, Desiree Smith, who started this past Monday; Desiree Smith, Heritage’s new Preservation Project Manger, graduated from the University of Arizona with a Masters degree in Urban Planning course work on historic preservation with a focus on culturally diverse communities and traditionally underserved parts of San Francisco.
 

C.        STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Preservation Coordinator Frye:

1.         Quarterly Report on HPC’s Landmark Designation Work Program FY 2011-2012 – stated that he would answer any questions the Commissioners might have.

            Community Workshop on Duboce Park Historic District was held at 45 Castro, the Davies Medical Center.  He received solid feedback from the community on what values the community has in preserving and protecting the historic district and what parts of the ordinance matters most to them.  Planning staff would compile and distribute that information to the community and the HPC when it’s ready.  The next scheduled event, “Ask a Planner Night” at the Duboce Park Cafe was set for September 27th at 6 p.m.  There were no other community meetings scheduled at this time.  Once the date is set, notice will be sent.

 

SPEAKERS:   None

ACTION:         Informational only – no action required.

           

D.        MATTERS OF THE COMMISSION

 

2.         President’s Report and Announcements - None

 

3.         Consideration of Adoption:

              a.        Draft minutes of Hearing of August 3, 2011

              b.        Draft minutes of Hearing of August 17, 2011

              c.        Draft minutes of Hearing of September 7, 2011

 

SPEAKERS:   None

ACTION:         Approved as corrected, on August 3, 2011 minutes, page 4, Under Action, No. 6, change project complies to project generally complies; page 5, change Snowheader to Snohetta; on August 17, 2011 minutes, change the vote on Item 8 from AYES vote for Commissioner Johns to ABSENT; the September 7, 2011 minutes were approved as presented.

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

 

4.         Disclosures

[On August 17, 2011, at a public hearing on its Rules and Regulations, the HPC approved continuing its practice of allowing Ex Parte Communications with required disclosure.]

 

Commissioner Damkroger had phone conversation with Richard Harris about Item 9 on the Calendar; had email on Item 9 from Brent Platter

Commissioner Martinez had conversation with Brent Platter about Sharp Park

Commissioner Wolfram received email from Brent Platter about Sharp Park

 

5.         Commissioner Comments/ Questions

 

Commissioner Damkroger went to SPUR’s Modernist Landscape Design kick-off last weekend and sat on one of the two panels.  One of the comments she brought back from the discussion was the recommendation that HPC consider landscape as a potential work designation item.  She thought it was something that HPC could think about in the future.

 

E.         REGULAR CALENDAR

 

6.         2011.0808A                                                                (P. LAVALLEY: 415/575-9084)

400 MONTGOMERY STREET, northeast corner of California and Montgomery Streets, in Assessor’s Block 0239, Lot 009. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for repair and limited replacement of the Colusa sandstone cladding on the Montgomery Street façade of the building.   The former Kohl Building, constructed in 1901 and partially reconstructed in 1907, is Landmark #161.  The property is located in a C-3-O (Downtown Office) Zoning District and a 300-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval

 

RECUSED:     Commissioner Chase

 

PRESENTERS: David Wessel, Architectural Resources Group

SPEAKERS:   None

ACTION:         Approved

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

MOTION NO: M136

 

7.         2009.0418F                                                                        (M. PAEZ: 415/705-8674)

PIER 36/BRANNAN STREET WHARF PROJECT, east side of The Embarcadero, in proximity of the intersection of Brannan and Townsend Streets (Block 9900, Lots 034 and 036). Request for Review and Comment on a draft Memorandum of Agreement prepared by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the lead agency, for Section 106 Review of the proposed demolition of Pier 36 and Sections 11 and portions of Sections 11a and 12, to address the project’s impact on historic resources.  Pier 36 and three sections of the bulkhead wharf are contributing resources within the Embarcadero Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2006.  The proposed demolition would include the removal of: approximately 133,000 square feet of pile-supported concrete, wooden decks, and piles; the 35,000 square-foot Pier 36 warehouse building; and approximately 18,800 square-feet (868 lineal feet) of bulkhead wharf, which runs between Piers 30-32 and Pier 38. The proposed demolition is necessary to improve navigation and prepare the site for the construction of a new approximately 57,000 square-foot wharf by the Port of San Francisco.  The new wharf would accommodate a public park and launch facility for human powered water craft. The project site is located in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Direct staff to draft written comments of the Commission to be forwarded to the US Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) and State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO).

 

PRESENTER:    Mark Paez, Port of San Francisco Historic Preservation Planning Staff

SPEAKERS:   Aaron Peskin addressed the open water basin between Pier 38 and Piers 30-32 which requires 106 consultation; and federal undertakings should be considered as a whole by HPC.

ACTION:         Approved sending HPC comments to 1) alter the MOA with language that the interpretive program should be created by a historian that meets the Secretary of Interiors Standards; 2) to send along this letter with HPC’s prior letter; and 3) to point out that the prior HPC comments that were forwarded had not been adequately addressed.

AYES:             Hasz, Johns, Martinez, Matsuda, Wolfram, Damkroger, and Chase

8.                                                                                                (B. WYCKO: 415/575-9048)

INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION FOCUSED ON CEQA REVIEW FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES

 

SPEAKERS:   Joe Butler, SF Architect and Member of the America Institute of Architects, went through the Planning Department checklist for 2807 Clay Street; Nancy Wuerfel, spoke about the lack of expired permit mechanism, brand new and expired permits should come back to Planning for review; Aaron Peskin stated that the full commission status of HPC has unlimited jurisdiction to comment on CEQA matters one and all.  He focused on Categorical Exemptions where Planning staff has been relying repeatedly on the notion that proposed projects that may have a significant impact on historic resources are consistent with the Secretary of Interiors Standards.  He pointed out that the Cat Ex case on 1406 Montgomery Street was clearly not consistent with the Standards; G. G. Platt asked the Planning Department to make Cat Ex more transparent for the public; Mike Buhler, SF Architectural Heritage, followed up on Mr. Peskin’s point earlier and asked why the Planning Department does not use, or rarely uses the Class 31 exemption for projects consistent with the Secretary of Interiors Standards.

ACTION:         Informational only – no action required
 

9.         2005.1912E                                                                     (J. RANGE: 415/575-9018)                                                         

SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCES AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN – 32 Natural Areas owned by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD) and located within San Francisco and Pacifica. Commission Review and Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Significant Natural Resources Area Management Plan (SNRAMP). The SNRAMP contains detailed information on the biology, geology, and trails within 32 Natural Areas, 31 of which are in San Francisco and one (Sharp Park) is in Pacifica. The SNRAMP is intended to guide natural resource protection, habitat restoration, trail and access improvements, other capital projects, and maintenance activities over the next 20 years. A number of natural areas are within identified historic districts. Additionally, the Sharp Park Golf Course has been determined to be an historic cultural landscape.

 

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 October 6, 2011.  Written comments on the DEIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., October 11, 2011.

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

 

SPEAKERS:   Mary Keitelman, resident of Pacifica, urged HPC to partner with the National Park Service to restore Sharp Park; Michelle Myers, Conservation Manager for Bay Area Sierra Club, urged HPC to consider a long term plan with the National Park Service who has already worked in places like Crissy Fields and Muir Woods; Richard Harris, Public Golf Alliance, referred to the letter to the HPC that addressed the historic aspects of Sharp Park Golf Course; Barbara Beth, with the Wild Equity Institute, commented that the historical evaluation of Sharp Park Golf Course provides insufficient information and evidence to support their conclusion; Laza Keitelman, Member of the Sierra Club and Pacific Show Bird Alliance, asked the Commission to review all the issues and to include all the stake holders.  He stated the Recreation and Park Department’s proposed mitigation plan would supposedly protect the endangered species and retain the golf resources by reconfiguring the golf course;  Connie [Monay-Broderick], Planning Division of Recreation and Park, stated the mission of her department; Linda Shaffer, Vice President of the Local Chapter of California Native Plant Society and Member of the City’s Park and Recreation Advisory Committee, asked the HPC to clarify whether or not Sharp Park Golf Course has been determined to be an historic cultural landscape

ACTION:         Approved sending a letter to the ERO highlighting four points:  1)  that the mitigation measure under MCP7 involve a historical landscape architect; 2)  that HPC believed ICP8 is a significant adverse impact; 3)  that HPC believed when the programmatic aspects of the development occur, the historic resources should be evaluated by a landscape architect and historian that meet the qualifications of the Secretary of Interiors Standards; and 4) that HPC anticipates these projects as they move forward would undergo Section 106 NEPA process for federal permits.

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

R&C Letter:   L0007

[R&C Letter = Response & Comment Letter]

  

10.       2011.0167T                                                               (S. HAYWARD: 415/558-6372)

PLANNING CODE CONTROLS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION.  The Commission will consider a proposed Ordinance sponsored by the Planning Department that would amend the Planning Code controls for Historic Preservation, including but not limited to Articles 10 and 11.  The Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments on August 5, 2010 and recommended approval with minor modifications of various Code Sections to the Board of Supervisors.  The Historic Preservation Commission began a parallel review of the proposed amendments in 2010 on the following dates: July 21st, August 4th, 18th, September 1st, 15th, and 29th, October 6th 15th, and 21st, November 3rd and 17th, and December 1, 2010.  The Historic Preservation Commission is considering further modifications prior to sending recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and began this re-review at its August 17th, 2011 public hearing, and continued the review at its September 7th, 2011 public hearing.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with minor modifications.

(Continued from Regular meetings of August 17 and September 7, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:   None

ACTION:         Continued further review of Article 11 to October 5, 2011

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

 

 

ADJOURNMENT:   4:33 P.M.

The minutes was proposed for adoption at the Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, October 5, 2011

ACTION:           Approved

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

ABSENT:          Johns

Last updated: 10/11/2011 4:12:20 PM