October 21, 2009

A. PUBLIC COMMENT

SPEAKERS:

Aaron Goodman – District 7 Resident, Re: Symposium at UC Berkeley on Landscape Design; Minutes

Peter Warfield – Library Users Association, Re: Golden Gate Valley Branch Library; Minutes; Preservation Architect for Park Branch renovation

William Hough – Representing Philip and Zella Burton Center for Human Rights, Re: Proposal to nominate SF Civic Center National Historic Site as a UNESCO World Heritage Site

Zach Stewart – Re: Thanking Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for serving

Pat Buschavich – Re: Facade ordinance

Bradley Wiedmaier – District 6 Resident, Re: Golden Gate Valley Branch Library; Historic report on Park Branch on naming issues; Minutes

B. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. (T. Tam: 415/558-6325)

Landmark Designation Work Program

(Continued from September 16 and October 7, 2009 hearings)

Preservation Coordinator Tina Tam:

This is an informational presentation about the historic resource surveys currently in progress. Later this afternoon, we'll going over the details of these projects and we'll bring these findings to you for adoption. Included in the survey program are four survey areas in the Eastern Neighborhood plan area, South of Market (SOM), Show Place Square, Mission North and Mission South. These survey activities have been on going for quite some time and based upon the current progress, we can bring the survey findings to you sometime early next year. While we wait unit that happens, we have the Eastern Neighborhood interim review procedures. These procedures were adopted some time last fall. They are set up so that they act as some sort of precautionary measures to secure against the loss of historical resources and to provide an extra layer of scrutiny in the period between when the Eastern Neighborhood was adopted and when the survey will be completed and adopted by the HPC. Today's calendar, you have two items on the Consent Calendar for your review and comment, and one item on informational presentation for your review. In the interim procedure, there are two levels of review. There are two types in your packet today. The first type, are projects that require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for properties constructed before 1963 that involves demolition or major alteration. Those projects get forwarded to you for review. We will provide you with a memo outlining why it's in you packet, a copy of the environment evaluation application, and information that is part of the project. The second type, are new construction within the plan area that is 55 feet or taller, or, 10 feet taller that the adjacent building that were built before 1963. Those projects get forwarded to you for review and comments. They are part of the regular scheduled hearing in whatever comment you'll make to us, we forward it to the project sponsor and the Planning Director. Today's calendar we have two items – 141-147 Albion Street and 411-415 Valencia Street. Both are for demolition and new construction. Should you want to pull those items off from the Consent Calendar, we have planner staff prepared to make their presentation to receive your comments.

2750 Vallejo Street is a 3-story single family building constructed in 1905. The Planning Department began its review on the property three years ago on March 3, 2006, when they proposed a project to demolish the existing building to construct a new single family in its place. At that time in 2006, the Planning Department issued an Historical Resource Evaluation Response (HRER) stating that the subject building was a potential contributory building in the identified historic district. Therefore, demolition of the building would cause an adverse impact to the environment. In 2007 and 2008, the project came back revised to retain the existing building and to construct a horizontal addition at the side and at the rear of the building instead. A new permit was filed and the old permit was cancelled. In response to this revised project, on July 2, 2008, the Planning Department issued another HRER, finding the proposed project would not be a significant impact to the identified historic district, or to the subject property. On May 6, 2009, the Department issued a Categorical Exemption (Cat Ex) for the project. A digressional review (DR) was filed for the permit, a DR hearing before the Planning Commission was heard on July 16, 2009. At the hearing, the Zoning Administrator considered a front set back variance for the project. Based upon the DR action, the Planning Commission did not take DR and approved the project as proposed. The variance decision for the front set back was taken under advisement. Based on the notes that I have, there were three points that the DR requestor brought up at the DR hearing. The first one, the DR requestor believed that the building qualified as an individual building eligible for the California Register. The Planning Department disagreed. We believed that the building is a contributory building to historic district, but did not merit and qualify under criteria 3. Another point that the DR requester raised was the Planning Department assessment of the facade's historic integrity. The requestor believed that the building retained a high level of historic integrity. We have evidence based upon investigation of both archival records and a preservation consultant's report that demonstrated that the building's foundation and facade were different from what originally constructed on the property. The third dealt with some of the minor texture and massing of the building facade. It was the bay window which since has been eliminated. After the DR hearing, the building permit was approved and it's currently under review by the Department of Building Inspection. That's the status of this project.

The Landmark Designation Work Program – I had reported back to you in September on the genesis and original of the Landmark Designation report, the buildings that were designated through the program, the challenges we faced, some ideas about the Department's budget, and staff time devoted to this program. Since the conception of this program, the Department has allocated approximately 0.5 FTE, which is around $50,000 for this program. That typically allowed the Department to work on one or sometimes two designations per year. Depending upon the complexity of a particular landmark – the size, review procedures, write up of the project – sometimes a designation can take up to two or three years to process. For example, the James Lick Bath Building at 6165, 10^th Street, City Landmark No. 246, took three years; the Music Concourse at Golden Gate Park, City Landmark No. 249 – the Department had a completed designation report from a preservation consultant, it still took seven hearings of the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board and a number of rewrites by planning staff. That designation resulted in taking up the budget for designation work programmed for the entire year. As much as we support having a work program on designation, it is difficult to have it with the reduction in staff, (two major rounds of lay-offs, and an increased workload). Unfortunately, we are not able to keep the Landmark Program in this current fiscal year's budget. Elaine Forbes, our Chief of Finance in the Department, presented that information to you in February of this year. Now with the initiation of the five Appleton & Wolfard Libraries from this Commission, I have asked Elaine and the Planning Director, John Rahaim, to come to the November 18 meeting to talk straightly about budgets and numbers. Hopefully we will get some more information then. With no other known designation work program, you non-the-less asked a status report of the program from last year. We had ten buildings or sites in the program: 1) The Van Ness Avenue Light Standards – 260 or so that run the entire length of US 101 – at 10% completion; 2) The Tellan Flat at 2870 Washington Street – at 10%; 3) Mona Cafe/Club at 440 Broadway – at 10 %; 4) Sunshine School at 2728-2762 Bryant Street – at 40 %; 5) Park Merced – at the time it was placed on the work program, we did not have a designation report and a DPR form, we just had newspaper clippings. However, we have a draft resource evaluation from a consultant at this point. It includes an analysis of the building as an eligible historic district – at 10 %; 6) 49 Mile Scenic Drive – at 10%; 7) Mission National Bank at 3868 16^th Street – it is a building that's part of the Mission North Survey; we have more information – at 25%; 8) Muni Transit Shelters at multiple locations – at 25%; 9) Del Monte Canning at Montgomery – at 25 %; 10) Mother's Building in San Francisco Zoo – at 25%. Those are the 10 buildings/sites on last year's Historic Landmark Designation Program; our gage of how much we have done and how much more we need to do.

Vice President Damkroger:

When Planning Staff come on the 18^th, they will be able to in addition to talk to us about the budget, talk to us about the prospect for the initiation of our library designation.

Preservation Coordinator Tina Tam:

Yes, I have asked them to provide all their input as to how that could be accomplished, either this fiscal year, or, the next fiscal year. (I do want to clarify something I said to you at the last HPC hearing. I mis-spoke when I said that once initiation from HPC happens, the Planning Department staff has a 90-day turn around time to come back to you with some information, a designation report, for you to consider in making your decision of whether to approve, disapprove, or approve with modifications. That is not true. The only initiation for the 90 days is triggered is when the Board of Supervisors makes that initiation. There is no time limit on the planning staff for when that has to come back to the HPC, once HPC initiates.

Commissioner Martinez:

There's a building on Sutter Street that Johannan was working on that had been connected to a synagogue. It might have been from the year before. It's a classical building.

Preservation Coordinator Tina Tam:

I don't see it on last year's work program. It might have been the previous year's work program. I can look it up.

Commissioner Martinez:

It seems to me that work was done on it. Also, on the Transit Shelters, there was a draft report for the whole group written by a graduate student. Did you take that into account?

Preservation Coordinator Tina Tam:

I do have a draft DPR, but I'm not sure which shelters. There are five identified. That has still put us in the 25% according to planning staff.

Commissioner Martinez:

When you come to the Fund Committee, you should be prepared to describe what this is all about. You should talk about these also. The Fund Committee may want to pursue some of these, either hiring separate consultants, or, funding you guys to do it if you don't have staff time. There may be some of these that the Committee might want to pursue and finish.

Preservation Coordinator Tina Tam:

It's my understanding that the Department is going to pursue funding sources for this program, but we can certainly consider your suggestion.

Commissioner Martinez:

I think you should, even if only 10%, this is already a considerable investment in time. The longer we wait, the harder it is. As staff changes, the harder it is to go back to finish because no one remembers what was done. Now at least, you have people who still remember what's going on here. I think some of these things the committee might be interested in pursuing. I think these should be presented to the Fund Committee one way or another.

SPEAKERS:

Aaron Goodman – Re: Park Merced, Peter Warfield – Library Users Association, Re: Landmark Designation Work Program priority, Robert Wiedmaier – Re: 2750 Vallejo Project, Joe Butler – Architect, Re: Budget for funding the Landmark Designation Work Program and preservation.

C. MATTERS OF THE COMMISSION

Commission Secretary Avery:

Commissioners, there were lots of comments about minutes today. I think this is a good time for us, for you especially, to indicate to me how you want to go forward with minutes. I believe the Chair is going to make a statement. I have had conversation with our Deputy City Attorney, Ms. Tam of Planning, and with President Chase on the minutes. I can actually tie part of this back to the budget, and what has been allocated to HPC is zero dollars. The minutes from my understanding is going from what happened in the past from the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. We have tried to continue with that pattern. It seems that the Landmarks Board wanted more comments in their minutes from their Commissioners than the Planning Commission, for instance. Planning Commission minutes do not include comments from their Commissioners at all, except under Commission Matters. Their comments are captured there. For comments from the public, Mr. Warfield is correct, the Sunshine Ordinance does require summary of comments from the public. I can honestly say that in addition to being tardy now, your minutes would be extremely tardy. There is no way I can meet the deadline because we don't have staff. We have a temporary staff person assigned to me to help with all the logistics of putting together a hearing and doing your minutes. We just don't have the money to hire another person who can be dedicated to these functions. I also have taken on another commission without additional modifying my other responsibilities. This is costing the Department nothing because I just took it on. I can't, honestly, give you everything that you had in the past as the Landmarks Board, that the public wants, or that the Sunshine Ordinance even requires without adequate staff. Until there is a balance here, somehow or another, I will always be deficient [to some degree] with what everyone wants.

Vice President Damkroger:

We'll have the adoption of minutes first and then we'll have discussion about the format of the minutes.

2. Consideration of Adoption:

a. Draft Minutes of Regular Hearing of September 2, 2009

b. Draft Minutes of Regular Hearing of September 16, 2009

SPEAKERS:

Peter Warfield – Library Users Association, Re: summary of public comments in minutes, Joan Wood – Friends of Appleton and Wolfard, Re: Video tape of the meeting would include public comments.

ACTION: Approved September 2, 2009 minutes, and approved as amended September 16, 2009 minutes - on page 2, correct mews from muse; real dirt at grade; the way it is in the plans; and on page 4 - Venetian palazzo

AYES: Hasz, Martinez, Wolfram, Damkroger

ABSENT: Buckley, Matsuda, Chase

Vice President Damkroger:

I like to ask the City Attorney if you see any difficulty or any problem with us discussing format of the minutes at this point

Deputy City Attorney Byrne:

No, I think it is well within the purview of the Matters of the Commission to discuss the format of its minutes and provide feedback to the Commission Secretary on how they would like to see minutes in the future.

Vice President Damkroger:

There has been some discussion about condensing the minutes. I'll give you my personal experience with having been on the staff and also on the commission side and the public side. It can be very helpful to have lengthy minutes. It's also enormously time consuming on the staff's part. There tends to be a fair amount of discussion around specifically what someone said and some changing of that discussion when in fact they may have said what was there, but they just want to change it now. What is most critical on each agenda item is who the speaker were, how they are identified, what the final resolution is, or the action is, and how it was worded and who voted in what way. The proposal is to summarize our minutes in that way so that we have the core and the most important information. And if someone wants more details they can go to the tape which is one of the functions of the tape. With regard to Architectural Review Committee (ARC), I would suggest we do what we did when I was the Historical Preservation Officer for San Jose – because those comments are critical for action on the part of the applicant - the Chair would summarize some of the key points at the end of each item in order to give direction to the applicant – and those could go into the minutes for referral. But, aside from that, there would not be a great amount of discussion included in the minutes. I'll leave you with those thoughts.

Commissioner Wolfram:

Is the audio tape available to the public?

Commission Secretary Avery:

The audio tape is the official record for Commission meetings and they are always available to the public

Commissioner Wolfram:

What about the compliance with summarizing public comments. Sounds like we are required....

Commission Secretary Avery:

The Sunshine Ordinance does require a summary of pubic comments and in the past I have actually been able to do that because I had the staff that I needed and we were able to go through it. Basically what we do now is identify the speakers, their affiliation(s) with whichever organization, and whether they are for or against the item that's on the calendar. We don't actually have summaries. For instance, we had California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) at last Thursday's Planning Commission hearing. We had 140 speakers. We are not able to go through and include a summary of all the comment for those speakers. But we can say this person is in favor of whichever site as part of the IMP process for that project. But we are not going through and just summarizing everything that's being said. I honestly say that my preference would be to not to do it. But I would always want to do what the law requires. But I need to have staff to do that. I have two commissions to run. I can't do that any longer unless I can get full-time staff to do this. I can honestly say you probably won't get that.

Vice President Damkroger:

I would add that the current proposal which would be to include the speakers information, the action, or the resolution, and the vote would be more in line with the Planning Commission, and probably be more consistent with the way Planning Commission keeps minutes as well.

Commissioner Wolfram:

I was wondering if we can say something like 20 people spoke in favor of this and 10 against - something to summarize it. At least we would be trying to acknowledge what they are saying. People not reading the minutes would have no idea what the flavor or the tenor is. And I would agree with Vice President Damkroger in trying to condense the comments, especially the ARC - maybe just having a summary at the end that these are the directions and approach and concept - not necessarily listing every single comment, but just trying to get a summary at the end. Often there is so much back and forth and the commissioner said one thing but then they think about it and they have a different point of view....doesn't need to all be there.

Commission Secretary Avery:

I agree.

Commissioner Martinez:

Is the Director aware that we are out of compliance?

Commission Secretary Avery:

He is aware of the amount that I can produce. Yes, he knows that we are not meeting the time line and I'm not sure he is aware of the summary issues.

Commissioner Martinez:

That is important. He is the one responsible.

Commission Secretary Avery:

Commissioners, I would suggest that there's not much we can do in this current fiscal year. The budget has been set and was done so before you were formed.

Commissioner Martinez:

There's not much you can do, but there are things that John can do. He needs to know from us that this is an issue. We are out of compliance. I don't think it is up to us necessarily to come up with a solution or to figure out an easier way of doing it.

Deputy City Attorney Byrne:

I would recommend the Commission provide feedback right now to Ms. Avery on format of the minutes and continue to work with Department staff on specific issues related to the Sunshine Ordinance.

Commissioner Martinez:

I think we need to comply with the ordinance. We need to do it in a substantive way, not a symbolic way. Are the tapes digital? I'd like you to look into the possibility of doing digital recordings and posting it on-line.

Commission Secretary Avery:

I'll look into that.

Vice President Damkroger:

Why don't we try for the next meeting the format that we've discussed here and we'll have the Planning Director at our November 18^th meeting. We'll be talking about the budget, and that would be an opportunity to talk about this. Hopefully we'll have an example prior to that meeting.

Commission Secretary Avery:

At the next meeting, I will let you know what I find out about the digital recording.

SPEAKERS:

Peter Warfield – Library Users Association, Re: Minutes in relation to Sunshine Ordinance and maximum disclosure

Unidentified Speaker – Re: Funding the video taping of HPC hearings

3. President's Report and Announcements

None

4. Commission Comments/Questions

Vice President Damkroger:

I want to make a suggestion that staff reports we received not include the appendixes that are part of the ordinance. I feel because we have those in the binder already, the great binger that was done for the new preservation commission, I don't think they need to be included. That is one way to save paper and time.

Commissioner Martinez:

When are we going to schedule the discussion about California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in response to the questions from Mr. Wolfram and Mr. Buckley about the discrepancy between following the Secretary of Interior Standards and Findings, and whether or not the project affects the historic resource. The topic needs to be calendared.

The Golden Gate Branch Library was reviewed by the Landmarks Board and did have comments about it. It would be nice to have an informational presentation about what they did with our comments.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

Note: All items (5 through 10) were removed from the Consent Calendar and considered at this hearing. Items 5-7, 9 & 10 were removed from the Consent Calendar by Commissioner Martinez and item 8 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Vice President Damkroger. It should also be noted that a member of the public indicated an interest in removing item 10 from the Consent Calendar.

Note: Prior to the staff presentation for item 5, Commission Secretary Avery suggested that the Commission should capture their actions in a motion or in a resolution, as follows:

Commission Secretary Avery:

Before we get to Public Comment, this is a perfect example I believe of how this Commission is proceeding as you did as the Landmark Advisory Board. Your comments, your direction to staff should be captured in a motion. You should have a document that actually shows the public what this Commission wants to have happen, but that is not going to happen. Going forward, items like this (item 5), your action should be captured in a motion or resolution document that the public has easy access to as opposed to making comments in a somewhat notation, advisory format. I guess they could be captured in your notes because they wouldn't be captured in your minutes.

Vice President Damkroger:

My expectation was we would make a motion which include Alan's comments.....This is also a comment, not a C of A.

Commission Secretary Avery:

I agree, but still even this should be captured in a document and I'd like you to have that. You don't have anything before you. You don't have a draft motion or a draft resolution.

Vice President Damkroger:

I see what you mean. Typically a staff report would have a draft motion and you would have carried that in the minutes and maybe added to or subtract from it in a discussion. I see your point.

Commissioner Martinez:

Ms. Tam, I am confused about what we can do or what we can't do on the calendar. On the calendar it says  concur with the Department.... , how can we concur without making a motion.

Preservation Coordinator Tam;

You can agree with our recommendation and make that part of your comment to Planning Director.

Commissioner Martinez:

Isn't that a motion?

Preservation Coordinator Tam;

It's your comment. That's how I see it looking at the interim permit procedure. The comments to the Director who can either accept them, or, not necessarily reject them, but take them into advisement when we are processing the permits.

Commissioner Martinez:

I'd like to make a motion. The City Attorney can figure out whether or not we ought to or not – cause I don't see any other way of moving with this.

Commissioner Hasz:

I am in agreement with Commissioner Martinez. Have we just become an Advisory Board again? We aren't actually a Commission if we are only commenting and passing on to someone else to decide. I would prefer to make a motion.

End of discussion.

5. 2008.0726E (P. LaValley: 415/575-9084)

141-147 Albion Street, east side between 16^th and 17^th Streets, in Assessor's Block 3568, Lot 068. 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, storage building, and construct a 4-story residential building. The subject property is located within the RTO-Mission (Residential Transit Oriented - Mission) District with a 45-X Height and Bulk limit. The Department is processing an Environmental Evaluation application and Historic Resource Evaluation Report for the project.

Recommendation: Concur with the Department's preliminary determination regarding identification of historical resources and/or the potential for historical resource impacts, and allow the Department to proceed with reviewing and/or processing the project's application(s).

SPEAKERS: Owen Canelly – Project Architect

ACTION: Passed a motion to concur with the Department's determination with an addendum that the fact that this new building on the same lot does not damage the historic integrity of this historic building and that it remain a historic resource.

AYES: Hasz, Martinez, Wolfram, Damkroger

ABSENT: Buckley, Matsuda, Chase

MOTION NO. 0027

6. 2008.0180EV (P. LaValley: 415/575-9084)

411-415 Valencia Street, east side between 15^th and 16^th Streets, in Assessor's Block 3554, Lot 027. 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, auto repair building and construct a six-story residential building with ground floor retail and parking. The subject property is located within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit (Valencia NCT) District with a 55-X Height and Bulk limit. The Department is processing a Community Plan Exemption and Variance application for the project.

Recommendation: Concur with the Department's preliminary determination regarding identification of historical resources and/or the potential for historical resource impacts, and allow the Department to proceed with reviewing and/or processing the project's application(s).

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Following the public hearing, the item was continued indefinitely. Commissioners requested that the Planning Department bring back more information that includes elevations of the two buildings together, historic resource and its significant character defining features, and material samples.

AYES: Hasz, Martinez, Wolfram, Damkroger

ABSENT: Buckley, Matsuda, Chase

7. 2009.0910A (T. Frye: 415/575-6822)

431 Jackson Street - Assessor's Block 0196; Lots 027. Between Sansome Street and Hotaling Place, the subject property is City Landmark #13, the Hotaling Annex-East Building and is a contributing structure to the Jackson Square Historic District. It is located within a C-2 (Community Business) District with a 65-A Height and Bulk limit. The proposal is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing projecting sign and armature and install a new armature and tenant signage.

Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from October 7, 2009 hearing)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved with conditions as modified that the new sign, with the size and design shown, be mounted in the frieze above the store front at least one foot away from the bracket.

AYES: Hasz, Martinez, Wolfram, Damkroger

ABSENT: Buckley, Matsuda, Chase

MOTION NO. 0028

8. 2009.0686A (T. Frye: 415/575-6822)

584-590 Pacific Avenue Assessor's Block 0163; Lots 011. Between Kearny Street and Montgomery Streets, the subject property is a contributing structure to the Jackson Square Historic District. It is located within a C-2 (Community Business) District with a 65-A Height and Bulk limit. The proposal is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing non-historic storefronts and install a new storefront system; and to construct a vertical addition.

Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: Alex Teriam – Project Architect

ACTION: Approved with condition as drafted by Planning Staff

AYES: Hasz, Martinez, Wolfram, Damkroger

ABSENT: Buckley, Matsuda, Chase

MOTION NO. 0029

9. 2009.0895A (T. Frye: 415/575-6822)

1182 Market Street - City Landmark #94, The Orpheum Theater Building, historically known as the Pantages Theater, Assessor's Block 0351; Lots 022. Located at the intersection of Market and Grove Streets. The subject property is also a contributing structure to the Civic Center Historic District and is a Category I building under Article 11 of the Planning Code. It is located within a C-3-G (Downtown General) District with an 80-X Height and Bulk limit. The proposal is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new hollow metal core door on the exterior of the building.

Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Pat Buscovich – Project Sponsor

ACTION: Approval with conditions as drafted and modified by Department staff regarding the hardware

AYES: Hasz, Martinez, Wolfram, Damkroger

ABSENT: Buckley, Matsuda, Chase

MOTION NO. 0030

10. 2009.0966A (T. Frye: 415/575-6822)

51-99 Grove Street – The Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, historically known as the Exposition Auditorium, Assessor's Block 0812; Lots 001. Bound by Hayes, Grove, Larkin, and Polk Streets. The subject building is a contributing structure to the Civic Center Historic District. It is located within a P (Public) District with an 80-X Height and Bulk limit. The proposal is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing light box sign on the Hayes Street elevation and to install a sign indicating the theater name and an LED marquee to promote theater events.

Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Michael Levine – Re: Name of Civic Auditorium, Gregg Perloff – Project Sponsor

ACTION: Following public testimony and commissioner's deliberation the item was continue to November 18, 2009 to allow absent commissioners the opportunity to participate. Commissioner Hasz requested additional information on the history (including the original name) of the building. The public hearing remains open.

AYES: Hasz, Wolfram, Damkroger

NAYES: Martinez

ABSENT: Buckley, Matsuda, Chase

NOTE: For votes on strictly procedural matters (such as a continuance), all that is required is a majority vote of those present.

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

11. (M. Weintraub: 415/575-6812)

Historic Resource Surveys In Process (citywide). Informational Presentation by Department Staff regarding historic resource surveys that are currently in process and anticipated to be completed in 2009 or 2010. Includes descriptions of individual survey projects, anticipated findings, schedules for completion, and discussion of steps required to finalize survey projects. In-process surveys include Department projects as well as community-sponsored projects for which Department staff provides review and recommendation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational only

SPEAKERS: Aaron Goodman requested that Historic Surveys be open to more historic survey consultants

ACTION: Information only – no action was taken

12. 2009.0963U (M. Brown: 415/575-9074)

West Slope of Russian Hill Historical Context Statement. The area under study consists of the block bounded by Greenwich, Lombard, Larkin and Polk Streets, plus four lots at the northwest corner of Lombard and Larkin Streets. Consideration to adopt, modify, or disapprove the West Slope of Russian Hill Historical Context Statement.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the West Slope of Russian Hill Historical Context Statement.

SPEAKERS: Catherine Patrin – Architectural Historian, Re: Role of the Northeast San Francisco Conservancy; Joe Butler – Director of Northeast SF Conservancy, Re: Urged adoption which would aid fundraising

ACTION: Approved as corrected page 6, paragraph 3,  area burned should read  area did not burn ; and page 18, paragraph 4,  Greenwich and Larkin should be Greenwich and Lombard.

AYES: Hasz, Martinez, Wolfram, Damkroger

ABSENT: Buckley, Matsuda, Chase

MOTION NO. 0031

Adjournment: 5:02 p.m.

The minutes was proposed for adoption at the Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, November 4, 2009.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Chase, Buckley, Matsuda