Historic Preservation Commission - May 20, 2015 - Minutes

Meeting Date:

May 20, 2015 (All day)

B. DEPARTMENT MATTERS

Preservation Coordinator Tim Frye: Good afternoon Tim Frye, Department staff, the Director’s report is included in your packets. Happy to answer any questions you may have about those items, but if you don’t then that concludes my report.

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

Mr. Frye: A few updates share with you for this week’s report. The first item is 901 Tennessee as you recall this commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction within the Dogpatch Landmark District recently that was on April 15th of this year. The Project Sponsor has elected to reduce or increase the size of the courtyard at the rear of the property about five feet to address some exposure issues and its proximity to an adjacent neighbor. That change, while a modification to your approval, will not change the unit mix or the appearance of the project from the public-rights-of-way. The Planning Commission continued the item so that the Project Sponsor could address this revision and is expected to hear the item tomorrow. We feel that this is still consistent with the intent of your approval, so we wanted at least to bring it your attention, also want to remind the Commission there is a portion of Article 10, while it is not used often it is there, that states that the Planning Commission may modify Certificate of Appropriateness issued by this Commission through a two-thirds vote as long as that C of A is not associated with an individual designated property, so that’s just really contributors to districts or infill construction within landmark districts. That section is 1006.1(e). If you have any questions about it, I'll be happy to give you an overview of that section and how it has been used in the past at a future hearing, but just want to give you an update on 901 Tennessee and I’ll certainly let you know how the Commission weighs in on it tomorrow. Second item, I wanted to give you an update based on a request by this Commission was in regards to 815 Tennessee Street. As you recall at our last hearing, Mr. Loomis came to general public comment provided some additional documentation on his property that raised several concerns 1) there is new information about the property’s historic significance that was not considered during the CEQA analysis, 2) that this Commission had not reviewed any proposal for demolition and new construction at this site. We looked at the record for the property and the entitlements associated. I passed out the Historic Resource Evaluation the preservation team review form just few minutes ago. There also is a copy online for the public should they be interested. It does indicate that we reviewed the property. We found it to be a contributor to a 3^rd Street Industrial District. This District is a CEQA eligible district; it is not the Dogpatch Landmark District. The subject property is outside of the Dogpatch Landmark District which then means it is also outside of this Commission’s purview or necessitating a Certificate of Appropriateness, which is why the Commission did not review the proposed project, and, secondly, the project did consider historic resource impacts in its CEQA analysis and that’s indicated in the PTR form I passed out to you. Our understanding is those CEQA impacts were taken into consideration during the review of the project and the Planning Commission approved the project including the CEQA finding at October 23, 2014 hearing. The project has been approved. There are other appeal routes should Mr. Loomis or another member of the public still have concerns, but we feel like staff accurately addressed the issues raised by Mr. Loomis in the context of this Commission. Certainly happy to look into it a little bit more if you have very specific questions.

Commissioner Pearlman: I have one question. You know it seems like having lived in the Dogpatch for many years I don't remember exactly where the boundary of the district is. I seem to remember there are parts of it that aren’t even attached but contiguous, but not quite attached. So the building directly across the street I assumed is in the district. The red brick building that is closer to Esprit Park. I don’t quite know the number.

Mr. Frye: That is correct. Mr. Loomis did highlight the subject property on Tennessee in red on a map as part of the packet he submitted. It is a little bit deceiving, it’s outside the district. It’s right where it jogs in and that's why from the map it appears that it's within a contributor, but in fact, it’s a contributor to a much larger CEQA eligible district. And you’ll notice from the PTR form, from a CEQA prospective when we look at a project and the demolition of one contributor that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a significant impact by removing one building from a much larger district. Certainly if that contributor were unique or individually eligible as well or, there are multiple contributors proposed for demolition that would require a different level of analysis. The last thing to mention to you is the Certified Local Government annual report draft will be e-mailed to you by the end of the day. We would ideally like to submit this to the State by next week. In an interest of time we decided not to prepare a presentation or overview of the report to this year as many of the items haven't changed. It is really a reporting requirement for our CLG status. If there any additional trainings that you would like us to include in the report please let the Commission Secretary’s Office know if you have an updated resume please also forward that to us for inclusion, otherwise we'll use the resumes we currently have on file. The one item or section that I will bring your attention that we would appreciate some input is at the very end it outlines how the department and the Commission achieved the goals we set for the previous year. I'm happy to report we have either achieved those or working diligently to achieve those goals and have made progress, but we did craft some new goals for the upcoming year that are directly in line with this commissions desire to focus on the cultural and social heritage, continue to improve the CEQA process to bolster our Landmark Designation Work Program and to explore options for funding at the citywide survey. Again the goals for next year are largely consistent with previous years, which again is another reason why we decided a formal presentation may not be necessary, but please give us your input once you received the document and let us know if there’s anything that will be helpful to add. That concludes any comments unless you have questions.

C. COMMISSION MATTERS

3. President’s Report and Announcements - None

4. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes for CHA April 15, 2015

· Draft Minutes for HPC April 15, 2015

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Adopted the minutes as amended that the architect for 901 Tennessee Street is ~~Pipler~~ Pitler.

AYES: Johnck, Johns, Pearlman, Hyland

ABSENT: Hasz, Matsuda, Wolfram

5. Commission Comments & Questions

· Disclosures.

· Inquiries/Announcements

· Future Meetings/Agendas

Commissioner Johns: There was a fabulous extraordinarily worthwhile and productive, I thought, conference of the California Preservation Foundation in San Diego recently. Many things that were worth noting but two of them in particular and since Mr. Frye mention the Citywide survey, one of the is, this is one that could save San Francisco probably one million dollars, or, least several truckloads of money, that is the City of Los Angeles is doing the Citywide survey in connection with the Getty Museum. The software and forms that they've developed for use in that exercise are available as open software that is to say free. And I know the number, we had a number of representatives there and I'm sure they'll be following-up on that but that could solve a plethora of problems that this Commission anticipated. The other thing is frequently when we are discussing mitigation, we ask that there’ll be a plaque or something like that placed outside a building that's been altered in order to provide some convenient history that someone walking by and usually it has been in my opinion an utterly unsatisfactory solution, but the City of Riverside has been working with a small company in order and they have developed an app in which all of the information may be placed so it is conveniently attainable by someone walking down the street who sees an indication that this is an important building. I understand that the landmarks or buildings or plaques that are part of this program can be searched and organized if one wanted to take a tour of those important things they can do that and as they went around the sign onto the app so I didn’t bring the information with me, but I did talk to several of people on our staff about it afterwards and have confidence we'll be able to use with the City of Riverside developed.

Commissioner Pearlman: I have a question about the June 3rd hearing. I just notice on the future calendar there was nothing on it yet and I don't know if anything is going to be on it.

Commissioner Secretary Ionin: Well we take that up at the time when we take up continuance but at this point staff has not provided me with anything to put on the Advance Calendar for June 3^rd, so it maybe an opportunity to cancel the hearing.

Commissioner Johnck: I wanted to respond if I may to this point about the plaques because I have suggested that projects include those I wasn't necessarily thinking of them as an mitigations per say, but just as an informative display of information to just passerby, but I guess one of the things I wanted to mention, I did take a photo of one plaque that had recently been installed on the Petri Cigar Factory on Battery Street. That has its pros and cons to it as far as design, let’s say that, but for information I mean it captures your attention for somebody walking by. That's the whole purpose and so at some point we may want to agendize or look at maybe having more of a template for ideas because it was the right size you could read it in a couple minutes, had three or four sentences so those are my thoughts, but thank you for that information.

Mr. Frye: Commissioners just to quickly respond we appreciate your comments and we've heard your comments prior about the desire for a plaque program and just wanted to update you and let you know that we are actively still working on a plaque program or a template to provide property owners and we hope to bring that to you soon, definitely within this year, ideally this summer for a design you would approve and we could help to facilitate vendors and the permitting process for the property owners for all landmark buildings.

Commissioner Secretary Ionin: Commissioners if I may as a worthy topic of discussion I think that this is not on our agenda and this has grown into a discussion now, so I would caution us not to proceed any further.

Commissioner Johns: Perhaps something for June the third.

D. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

6. 2014.1383U (G. HILYARD: (415) 575-9109)

CIVIC CENTER CULTURAL LANDSCAPE INVENTORY – Consideration to adopt, modify, or disapprove the findings of the Cultural Landscape Inventory. The Department-sponsored survey focused on the landscape characteristics and setting of the existing Civic Center Landmark District. The Department identified character-defining landscape features of the Civic Center Landmark District and identified a period of significance from 1896-1951. The purpose of the survey is to inform planning decisions within Civic Center and to encourage sensitive design treatment and maintenance of the district’s cultural landscape. The general boundaries of the survey area are: Golden Gate Avenue to the north, UN Plaza to the east, Market Street to the south, and Franklin Street to the west.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt

(Proposed for Continuance to August 5, 2015)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to August 5, 2015

AYES: Johnck, Johns, Pearlman, Hyland

ABSENT: Hasz, Matsuda, Wolfram

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

7. 2014.0886A (S. CALTAGIRONE: (415) 558-6625)

601 STEINER STREET - C of A, northwest corner of Steiner and Fell Streets. Assessor’s Block 00823, Lots 004, 005 &008011. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new 1-story, 222-square-foot office and conference room to be located behind the Gearhart Building in the northwest corner of Lot 004. The new building will be approximately 18’ deep, 12.5’ wide, and 10.5’ tall. The north wall of the building will align with the north property line. The building will be clad in wood, horizontal, lap siding on the primary (south) façade and Hardie panel siding on the secondary facades, which are not visible from any public right-of-way. The subject property is located within the Alamo Square Landmark District; Lots 005 and 008 are zoned RM-1 (Residential, Mixed Use, Low Density. Lot 004 is zoned RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District. All lots are in 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

PRESENTERS: Louie Belmonte, Chair of the Olof House - stated the purpose of the new construction; Marlene Stenechprince, Executive Director of the Olof Program and Project Sponsor - explained the new construction is for a different program;

SPEAKERS: - Sue Valentine, Neighbor - open space requirements;

- Caterina Fake, Neighbor - prior illegal construction and open space.

ACTION: Approved with Conditions

AYES: Johnck, Johns, Pearlman, Hyland

ABSENT: Hasz, Matsuda, Wolfram

MOTION NO: M-0257

8. 2014.0690A (S. CALTAGIRONE: (415) 558-6625)

1000 GREAT HIGHWAY, GOLDEN GATE PARK CONSERVATORY OF FLOWERS, between John F. Kennedy Drive and Conservatory Drive. Assessor’s Block 1700, Lot 001. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to address deteriorating glazing putty at the Conservatory of Flowers roof by installing a silicone cap over the existing wood muntins and to increase security at the site by installing cameras at nine locations. The property is designated as Landmark No. 50 in Planning Code Article 10 and as State Landmark No. 841 in the National Register. The subject property is zoned P (Public) District and OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to June 17, 2015

AYES: Johnck, Johns, Pearlman, Hyland

ABSENT: Hasz, Matsuda, Wolfram

9. 2015-003877DES (J. LAMMERS: (415) 575-9093)

45 Onondaga Avenue - Consideration for inclusion on the Historic Preservation Commission’s Landmark Designation Work Program, the interior frescoes painted by Bernard Zakheim at the former Alemany Health Center, located on the southeast corner of Onandaga Avenue and Alemany Boulevard, Assessor's Block 6959, Lot 016, as an individual Article 10 Landmark pursuant to Section 1004.1 of the Planning Code. This item has been calendared following receipt of a community-generated Landmark Designation Application. The building is located in a NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Further Study

(Continued from April 15, 2015)

PRESENTER: Richard Rothman - Ask HPC consideration to put the proposed project on the Landmark Designation Work Program list.

SPEAKERS: + Lisa Dunseth, New Mission Terrace Improvement Association - support;

+ David Hooper, President of the New Mission Terrace Improvement Association - support.

ACTION: Adopted a motion directing staff to add the subject property to the Landmark Designation Work Program, provided: staff supports the effort and the Applicant conduct further research and provides additional information.

AYES: Johnck, Johns, Pearlman, Hyland

ABSENT: Hasz, Matsuda, Wolfram

10. 2015-004168DES (S. FERGUSON 415.575.9074)

350 UNIVERSITY STREET , Consideration to Initiate Landmark Designation of the University Mound Old Ladies’ Home, west side of University Street between Burrows Street and Bacon Street, Assessor’s Block 5992, Lot 001, as an individual Article 10 Landmark pursuant to Section 1004.1 of the Planning Code. University Mound Old Ladies’ Home at 350 University Street is a convalescent/nursing home that is architecturally significant as an embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of the Colonial Revival style and represents the work of master architects Martin J. Rist and Alfred I. Coffey. The building was added to the Landmark Designation Work Program on October 8, 2014. It is located in a RH-1 (Residential – House, One Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve

PRESENTER: Bells Yelda, Petitioner of the University Mound Old Ladies’ Home - Presentation

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Adopted a Resolution to Initiate

AYES: Johnck, Johns, Pearlman, Hyland

ABSENT: Hasz, Matsuda, Wolfram

RESOLUTION NO: R-747

Adjournment: 2:01 PM

ADOPTED: June 17, 2015

ACTION: Adopted

Main menu

Planning Department

Historic Preservation Commission - May 20, 2015 - Minutes

B. DEPARTMENT MATTERS

Historic Preservation Commission - May 20, 2015 - Minutes

B. DEPARTMENT MATTERS

ARCHIVED SITE NOTICE