SAN FRANCISCO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers Room 400,
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689

Wednesday, February 1, 2017
12:30 p.m.
Regular Hearing

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:   Wolfram, Hyland, Hasz, Johnck, Matsuda, Pearlman, Johns

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT WOLFRAM AT 12:34 PM

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  John Rahaim – Director of Planning Department, Rich Sucre, Melinda Hue, Stephanie Cisneros, Marcelle Boudreaux, Elizabeth Gordon-Jonckheer, Ali Kirby, Deborah Landis, Tim Frye – Historic Preservation Coordinator, Jonas P. Ionin – Commission Secretary

SPEAKER KEY:
+ indicates a speaker in support of an item;

• indicates a speaker in opposition to an item; and

= indicates a neutral speaker or a speaker who did not indicate support or opposition.

A. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

None

B. DEPARTMENT MATTERS

1. Director’s Announcements

Tim Frye, Preservation Officer:
Commissioners, nothing to report; however the director is right here and happy to answer any questions should you have them.

2. Review of Past Events at the Planning Commission, Staff Report and Announcements

Tim Frye, Preservation Officer:
Just a couple items to share with you; as you’ll recall, this commission provided review and comment on the trailing ordinance to Prop X. The Planning Commission did hear the item and they did take into consideration your comments on the trailing ordinance. In some public testimony spoke to concerns about the loss of PDR in the city which requires a CU and on-site replacement and the need to deny-excuse me- Supervisor Kim’s ordinance as a whole, but testimony also supported the ordinance as a means to help and facilitate the adaptive reuse of older buildings. The Planning Commission deliberated over the nature of the exemptions allowed under the ordinance and they also considered allowed uses of the magnitude of job creation possible for the affected buildings should the project propose PDR conversion. At the end, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 in favor of the ordinance and accepted all of staff’s modifications. They did not however incorporate this commission's recommendation to broaden this to all landmark properties within those zoning areas. However, that recommendation will still be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration when they take up the item at the Land Use Committee. We do not have a date for the Land Use Committee hearing just yet, but we'll certainly keep you posted.

President Wolfram:
Does that mean they included the staff recommendation, the 49,000, the Planning Commission recommended that as well?

Tim Frye, Preservation Officer:
Exactly, yes. Then finally just a reminder, history days at the San Francisco Mint are coming up shortly on Saturday, March 4 and Sunday, March 5. The Planning Department will be participating naturally on behalf of also the Historic Preservation Commission so we will have a table there and we will keep you posted on the types of projects and materials that we are going to share with the public at that time. That concludes my report and unless you have any questions. Thank you.

C. COMMISSION MATTERS

3. President’s Report and Announcements

None

4. Consideration of Adoption:

• Draft Minutes for January 18, 2017

SPEAKERS:	None
ACTION:	Adopted
AYES:	Wolfram, Hyland, Hasz, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman

5. Commission Comments & Questions

President Wolfram:
I do want to disclose that I did speak with members from Forest City about the Pier 70 project.

Commissioner Pearlman:
I was walking down here today and I walked past 815 Hyde Street which is a handsome apartment building from pre-earthquake days and right to the right of the entrance is a bronze plaque that says, this is a historic building and it has a little bit about why it survived the earthquake. It reminded me again how we seem to never get to the notion and I'm wondering if there's a way to do this; I mean this was not city sponsored. Clearly, the owner of the building had put that up and I learned something today by walking by and stopping and reading that plaque. It seems like just recently we had this 1532 Franklin come up and, you know, last time we got the staff report on that and that’s considered a historic resource and we know what’s going to happen. It's going to now have to go through a focused EIR to do the project for a use that's completely unrelated to the building that’s there; just happen to be a place where a use started and it seems to me that there’d be a great deal of help for the economy and the way the department runs and the time it takes to get projects approved, if we had an intermediate step, which is, some way, to honor the thing that happened there without forcing an owner to go through an extremely expensive and extremely time-consuming process for something that we all know what the outcome will be, there’ll be some mitigation measures, there will be some reason to create some display in a lobby of a building that the only reason you would know about it is, you went in that building. I mean we have many of these historical presentations but they tend to be inside a building where something has been replaced and that doesn't help the public at all other than the people who use that building. So I'm just wondering if we can, I don’t know if it takes a committee or some way we can talk about a process that perhaps could celebrate the history of what happened in a place when there's something so obviously unrelated to the building, the building itself, you know, isn't much and there's this very long process is going to happen, with the results known essentially. I mean, that particular project is even less impactful than the 235 Valencia with the Hap Jones motorcycle dealership where we all had this kind of discussion and there’re now going to have to go through every long arduous process or they don't have to because of what we had decided on. So, I don't know what’s going to happen with 1532 Franklin but I went by the building, it's pretty unassuming and I don't know what’s proposed there, but the use that was there and the building itself just seems completely unrelated to one another. So it seems like a shame that that process was going to have to be undertaken for something we already know. So, I don't know if that something Mr. Frye we can talk about, even just about a plaque program to say such and such happened here. Anyway, so I like to see if there's something we can study about that?

Tim Frye, Preservation Officer:
Just a point of clarification-excuse me-commissioner, are you asking to have a discussion about the CEQA process or about an interpretive program? Because their standard mitigation under CEQA when there's the historic impact would require or usually does require some sort of interpretive program that's accessible to the public.

Commissioner Pearlman:
I'm not questioning that and then each one is different. It just seems that most of them tend to be something interpretive inside the building. There have been a few that's been outside open to the public, but all a lot of them are inside the building. So that doesn't seem that valuable for the public. It just seems like we’re always talking about the story of what happened here and we just don't seem to have a very good way of telling that story. I often refer to Philadelphia as a city that has done such an excellent job of being able to educate the public while just walking down the sidewalks about the history that happened and that’s certainly has about 150 years or more history than we do, so I just would love to see if there's a way we could perhaps come up with a program that's an intermediate between a full-blown EIR process. I don't know what I'm asking because I just thought of this on the way down today, but I would like to at least have this discussion about something intermediate plaque program that somehow celebrates events that happened but are unrelated to the physical structure that happens to be on the site.

President Wolfram:
May I suggest maybe we could and we used to have in the advance calendar topics for future meetings that were more-not necessarily related to projects; so maybe we could add the idea of interpretive discussion about interpretive programs to a future calendar? We could also include an update on the Landmark Plaque Program which is now ongoing.

Commissioner Johnck:
I just want to mention that I did have an e-mail communication with Ms. Pretzler from Forest City about Pier 70, very productive.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR 

6. 2016-014227CRV                                      (D. LANDIS: (415) 575-9118)
FY 2017-2019 PROPOSED DEPARTMENT BUDGET and WORK PROGRAM - A presentation of the department's proposed revenue and expenditure budget in FY 2017-2018 and FY2018-2019, including grants, capital budget requests, and staffing changes; high-level work program activities for the department in FY 2017-2018 and FY2018-2019; and proposed dates where budget items will be discussed during the budget process. 
Preliminary Recommendation: None – Informational

SPEAKERS:	John Rahaim – Introduction Deborah Landis – Staff report
ACTION:	Reviewed and Commented

7. 2016-010387COA                                         (A. KIRBY: (415) 575-9133)
151 LIBERTY STREET – south side between Guerrero and Dolores Streets; Assessor’s Block 3607, Lot 036A.   Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior improvements to the south façade. The subject building is located within the Liberty-Hill Landmark District.  The proposed project is to correct Violation no. 2016-003856ENF, involving the removal of exterior finishes on the historic primary façade, which exceeded the work approved under Case No. 2012.1523A. The corrective action under this application is to reconstruct the primary façade of the historic residence, including windows, per the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. All other exterior and interior work was approved and completed under Case No. 2012.1523A, HPC Motion 0219. The subject property is located within a RH-3 (Residential, Housing – Three Family) Zoning District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District. 
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

SPEAKERS:	= Ali Kirby – Staff report + Arnie Lerner – Project presentation - John Barbey - Ingrid Eggers Georgia Schuttish
ACTION:	Approved with Conditions as Amended to include the following: 1. Sponsor to continue working with staff on details including trim, brackets and windows; 2. Rear retaining wall to remain planted; 3. Revisions to be interviewed by Staff and calendared as an informational item on a future Commission Agenda.
AYES:	Wolfram, Hyland, Hasz, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman
MOTION:	0300

8. 2016-008712COA                                                  (E. JONCKHEER: (415) 575-8728)
333 DOLORES STREET – east side between 16th and 17th Streets; Assessor’s Block 3567, Lot 057.   Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior improvements to the south façade of the existing subject building currently occupied by the Children’s Day School. The subject building is part of Landmark Site No. 137 “The Notre Dame School”.  Proposed work includes removal of an existing fire escape, removal of the floor of the existing pergola to create a new concrete slab porch with a continuous accessible grade across the front of the building, and modifications to the openings on the pergola level to accommodate new accessible entrance doors.   Existing aluminum windows and metal fire doors are proposed to be replaced with units to match the historic appearance during the period of significance.  The existing clay tile roof is also proposed to be replaced. The subject property is located within a RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) Zoning District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District. 
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

SPEAKERS:	= Elizabeth Jonckheer – Staff report + Steven Hugley – Project presentation
ACTION:	Approved with Conditions as Amended to require the Sponsor to continue working with Staff to reintroduce the staggered pattern of roof tiles, if feasible.
AYES:	Wolfram, Hyland, Hasz, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman
MOTION:	0301

9a. 2014-002409COA                                       (M. BOUDREAUX: (415) 575-9140)
188 HAIGHT STREET – (Assessor Block 0852/ Lot 033) (District 5). Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for front and rear façade alterations at the main residence, and demolition of non-contributory shed to be replaced with new construction of a new one-car garage, with workshop and roof deck, at the Rose Street frontage. On the front façade, the project would repair existing windows and replace existing glazing with laminated glazing. At the rear, the project would add a new two-story square bay, add new openings for a door and window, and add a small second floor deck with spiral stair accessing the rear yard. The subject property is part of Landmark No. 164, the McMorry-Lagan Building, and is located within the RTO (Residential Transit Oriented) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with Conditions

SPEAKERS:	= Marcelle Boudreaux – Staff report = Andrea Tishler – Not opposed
ACTION:	Approved with Conditions
AYES:	Wolfram, Hyland, Hasz, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman
MOTION:	0302

9b. 2014-002409VAR                                        (M. BOUDREAUX: (415) 575-9140)
188 HAIGHT STREET – (Assessor Block 0852/ Lot 033) (District 5). Request for Variance  from the requirements for rear yard (Section 134 of the Planning Code). The proposed project includes front and rear façade alterations at the main residence, and demolition of non-contributory shed to be replaced with new construction of a new one-car garage, with workshop and roof deck, at the Rose Street frontage. On the front façade, the project would repair existing windows and replace existing glazing with laminated glazing. At the rear, the project would add a new two-story square bay, add new openings for a door and window, and add a small second floor deck with spiral stair accessing the rear yard. The subject property is part of Landmark No. 164, the McMorry-Lagan Building, and is located within the RTO (Residential Transit Oriented) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS:	Same as Item #9a.
ACTION:	ZA after closing public comment, indicated an intent to Grant

10a. 2017-000184LBR                                            (S. CISNEROS: (415) 575-9186)
411 BRANNAN STREET – south side of Brannan Street between Third Street and Ritch Street. Assessor’s Block 3787, Lot 049 (District 6). Consideration of adoption of a resolution recommending Small Business Commission approval of a Legacy Business application. Established in 1996, ArtHaus Gallery is an independently owned and operated fine art gallery in the South of Market/Mission Bay neighborhood. The Legacy Business Registry recognizes longstanding, community-serving businesses that are valuable cultural assets to the City. In addition, the City intends that the Registry be a tool for providing educational and promotional assistance to Legacy Businesses to encourage their continued viability and success. The subject business is within a SLI (SOMA Service-Light Industrial) Zoning District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval

SPEAKERS:	= Stephanie Cisneros – Staff report
ACTION:	Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES:	Wolfram, Hyland, Hasz, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman
RESOLUTION:	846

10b. 2017-000187LBR                                            (S. CISNEROS: (415) 575-9186)
3515 CALIFORNIA STREET – south side of California Street at Locust Street. Assessor’s Block 1035, Lot 001 (District 2). Consideration of adoption of a resolution recommending Small Business Commission approval of a Legacy Business application. Incorporated in 1946, Books Inc. is an independently owned and operated, neighborhood-centered bookstore with three locations in San Francisco. The Legacy Business Registry recognizes longstanding, community-serving businesses that are valuable cultural assets to the City. In addition, the City intends that the Registry be a tool for providing educational and promotional assistance to Legacy Businesses to encourage their continued viability and success. The subject business is within a NC-S (Neighborhood Commercial, Shopping Center) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval

SPEAKERS:	Same as Item #10a.
ACTION:	Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES:	Wolfram, Hyland, Hasz, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman
RESOLUTION:	847

11. 2014-001272ENV                                          (M. HUE: (415) 575-9041)
PIER 70 MIXED-USE DISTRICT PROJECT – located on the east side of Illinois Street between 20th and 22nd streets, Assessor's Block 4052  Lot 001; Block 4111 Lot 004; Block 4120 Lot 002; Block 4110 Lots 001 and 008A. – Commission Review and Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report.  The proposed project would rehabilitate and redevelop a portion of Pier 70 with new market-rate and affordable residential uses, commercial-office, retail light industrial-arts uses, parking, infrastructure development, including new street improvements, and public open space. The project site is owned by the Port of San Francisco, and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as the Union Iron Works Historic District. The project site is located within the M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) and P (Public) Zoning Districts with a 40-X & 65-X Height and Bulk Limit.
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 February 9, 2017. Written comments on the DEIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., February 21, 2017.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKERS:	= Melinda Hue – Staff report + Kelly Pretzler – Project presentation = Rich Sucre – Department review of mitigation measures
ACTION:	Reviewed and Commented The majority of the HPC (six out of seven Commissioners) concurred with the analysis and conclusion in the DEIR, and concluded that the DEIR was adequate.  The Commissioners agreed with the finding that there is no significant adverse impact to the Union Iron Works Historic District. They felt that while the proposed demolition of the adjoining buildings surrounding Building 12 would diminish some of the qualities of the historic district, there would still be enough remaining historic fabric and character-defining features to convey the district’s significance.  Furthermore, the Commissioners found that the proposed mitigations would result in a less than significant impact to the historic district.  Commissioner Pearlman dissented with the majority opinion, and disagreed with the analysis of historic resource impacts presented in the DEIR. Particularly, Commissioner Pearlman disagreed with the conclusion regarding the proposed demolition of the existing contributors. Commissioner Pearlman stated that the proposed demolition of the existing contributors (Buildings 15, 16, 25, 32 and 66), as well as the relocation of Building 21 to a new context, would cause a substantial adverse impact to the historic district.  He stated that the demolition of these contributors would reduce the percentage of district contributors and cause a material impairment to the Union Iron Works Historic District. In addition, the proposed improvement/mitigation measures would not mitigate these impacts. Lastly, Commissioner Pearlman stated that the design of the proposed buildings and the introduction of a traditional street grid are uncharacteristic and disrespectful to the historic district.  The HPC requested an amendment to the improvement measure (I-CR-4b) for public interpretation. Specifically, the public interpretation and/or wayfinding program should focus and include more information and documentation of the site’s three eras of history and activity.  The HPC also requested more information about the site’s development, circulation, and movement patterns and more renderings from various different view corridors.
LETTER:	0073

ADJOURNMENT – 3:53 PM
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 15, 2017