SAN FRANCISCO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Hearing Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
12:30 P.M.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wolfram, Martinez, Matsuda, Damkroger and Hasz,
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chase and Buckley
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT DAMKROGER AT 12:38 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Tina Tam – Preservation Coordinator, John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Kelley Amdur – Director of Neighborhood Planning, Shelley Caltagirone, Ben Fu, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary
A. PUBLIC COMMENT
SPEAKERS:
Bradley Wiedmaier, Architectural Historian – re: 2750 Vallejo Street, responded to issues raised in the staff report given by the case planner.
B. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Planning Department’sFY 2010-2011 Budget Discussion of Department’s proposed balanced budget. (E. Forbes: 558.6417)
Planning Director Rahaim
Through a powerpoint presentation, the Director highlighted the Department’s Proposed Balanced budget & Work Program
SPEAKERS:
Sara Jones – San Francisco Planning - MEA Division, and Member of the Joint Labor Management Committee (JLMC), re: Although she did not elaborate on the various proposals in the report, she did state that the proposed recommendations developed to address the Department’s deficit by the JLMC was a collaborative effort from many staff.
Cynthia Servetneck – E-group Moderator for the S.F. Preservation Consortium, re: The Department must continue with the survey work as it is an essential component of long range planning. She supports funding Article 10; local historic districts first, national register districts second, and she supports televising HPC hearings on SFGTV. She asked how much of the grant person’s time would be spend on contacting organizations.
Peter Lewis – President of Mission Dolores Association, re: Proposed moving the final integration of the historic districts to the plan after final adoption hearings, especially Market/Octavia.
Jack Gold – Executive Director - S.F. Architectural Heritage, re: Urged the Planning Department to embrace and listen to the HPC and to take advantage of these highly qualified professionals. The Department needs to focus on the importance of survey work and local designations.
Gee Gee Platt – re: 1) Questioned how many of the 11 preservation planners would be taken from the 6 FTEs for application review; 2) She is disturbed that the Department didn’t think it has the capability to do in-house designation reports; 3) She is supportive of getting local designation work done; 4) The Department should ask the Fund Committee for help; and 5) The Department’s FY10-11 budget could be more creative.
ACTION: Informational only – although the Commission did not take action, following are its comments:
The HPC appreciates the Department’s hard work in presenting the current draft balanced budget.
The HPC feels the Department should include the opportunity of requesting funds from the Historic Preservation Fund Committee for preservation related needs, such as survey and designation.
The HPC feels the Department should increase staff time by .7 from .3 to 1.0 FTE for designation work (particularly those coming from the Market/Octavia Area Plan). The HPC also feels that the Department should encourage the private sector to pursue local designations and an increase in staff resources would help to demonstrate the Department’s commitment to assist.
During the public comment period Gee Gee Platt stated her willingness to work with the Department to assist in Department/HPC initiated designations. Mrs. Platt also stated her desire to see greater creativity on the part of the Department in undertaking designation reports in house. The HPC agreed with Mrs. Platt’s points.
The HPC felt that as the economy begins to recover, the Department must have a plan for addressing important work items that have been shelved due to the budget crisis. The HPC would like to be a part of ensuring that preservation priorities are included in these future planning efforts.
The HPC also commented on the February 3, 2010 Memo that provided a Cost Analysis between the LPAB and HPC:
There was no consideration of the cost savings of not having to take LPAB recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Questioned whether there has been a significant change in the level of public comment and participation between LPAB and HPC.
Staff and City Attorney (CA) Time: We recognize that there may be more CA time due to the institution of the new HPC; however, it is expected that this will decrease over time. The HPC also expects that CA time to review complicated staff reports, General Plan and CEQA compliance would take place regardless of whether there is a LPAB or an HPC.
Administrative Staff Support: While the attention to the contents and extent of the minutes has been significant over the last several months, this has largely been an issue of public request and Sunshine Compliance. We recognize that it is still a cost associated with the HPC, but it may not be an item specifically associated with the transition from LPAB to HPC.
ARC Items: We believe the number of items going to the ARC have not been significantly different. The level of complexity may simply be a function of the projects rather than HPC vs. LPAB.
ON THE MATTER OF THE COST ANALYSIS MEMO:
SPEAKERS:
Cynthia Servetneck – Member of SF Preservation Consortium, re: The cost comparisons between LPAB and HPC for City Attorney fees is nominal
Bradley Wiedmaier - Member of SF Preservation Consortium, re: Coming in compliance with minutes and the function of a full commission is a requirement.
ACTION: This item was considered as part of the Department’s budget. The Cost Analysis memo was part of the informing material on the budget. Although the Commission did not take action on this memo, its comments on the memo are listed above.
2. Disclosure: A discussion to establish the Commission’s definition of disclosure that could include disclosure of contacts individual commissioners may have or have had with parties outside of the public hearing regarding matters under the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission. (T. Tam: 415/558.6325)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to March 3, 2010
AYES: Damkroger, Hasz, Martinez, Matsuda and Wolfram
ABSENT: Chase and Buckley
C. MATTERS OF THE COMMISSION
3. President’s Report and Announcements
4. Consideration of Adoption:
a. Draft minutes of Regular Hearing of January 20, 2010
b. Draft minutes of Joint CPC/HPC Hearing of January 28, 2010
c. Draft minutes of Regular Hearing of February 3, 2010
5. Disclosures
6. Commission Comments/Questions
NOTE: Because of time constraints, items under MATTERS OF THE COMMISSION (3 – 6) were considered and voted on as one item
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to March 3, 2010
AYES: Damkroger, Hasz, Martinez, Matsuda and Wolfram
ABSENT: Chase and Buckley
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
Item 7 was taken out of order and heard after item 1.
7. 2009.1122A (S. Caltagirone: 415/558-6625)
900 North Point (a.k.a. 851 Beach Street), Ghirardelli Square, - on block bound by Beach, North Point, Larkin, and Polk Streets. Assessor’s Block 0086, Lots 001-058. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the Bank of America signage at the south façade of the Woolen Mill Building. Ghiradelli Square is designated San Francisco Landmark No. 30 and is listed on the National and California Registers of Historic Places. The site is zoned C-2 (Commercial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and is also within the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 2.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
NOTE: Commissioner Damkroger asked to be recused from hearing this because she lives within 500 feet to the property. She designated Commissioner Martinez as Chair
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Commission Damkroger recused
AYES: Wolfram, Martinez, Matsuda, Damkroger and Hasz
ABSENT: Buckley and Chase
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved Certificate of Appropriateness
AYES: Wolfram, Martinez, Matsuda, Damkroger and Hasz
ABSENT: Buckley and Chase
MOTION #: M0048
E. REGULAR CALENDAR
8. (S. Caltagirone: 415/558-6625)
2750 Vallejo Street - Informational Presentation and Discussion regarding the appeal of a Building Permit Application No. 2008.08.14.9201. This Building Permit Application is currently under appeal to the Board of Appeals (Appeal No. 09-152) and is scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, February 24, 2010. The Historic Preservation Commission may direct staff to draft a letter from the Commission to the Board of Appeals regarding the appeal of the Building Permit Application approval.
SPEAKER: Bradley Wiedmaier – Architectural Historian and Individual Member of Preservation Consortium, re: The addition would bring a change in existing patterns; the dormer exceeds 26% of what is proposed in the Residential Design Guidelines; and the change of materials proposed would removed the differentiation between floors.
ACTION: No action required for this Item – Information only.
9. 2009.0412A (S. Caltagirone: 415/558-6625)
1338 Filbert Street, Filbert Street Cottages - north side between Polk and Larkin.Assessor’s Block 0524, Lot 031 – Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rehabilitate the cottages and site for residential use. The Filbert Street Cottages are San Francisco Landmark No. 232. The site is zoned RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
PRESENTERS: Andrew Junius – Representing Project Sponsor, David Lowe – Project Sponsor, Jerome Butterick – Project Architect
SPEAKER: Winnie Seagull – Neighbor, re: Supported the proposed project
ACTION: Approved with modifications – new windows in the existing cottages are to be painted wood; semi permanent color at least as dark as Golden Khaki Deep; south face of the new addition is to be pulled northward half the distance that intersects the shed roof and still allow vertical passage connections; the sun-screens of the new addition is to stop where the alley ways are.
AYES: Wolfram, Martinez, Matsuda, Damkroger and Hasz
ABSENT: Buckley and Chase
MOTION #: M0049
Item 10 was taken out of order and heard after item 11.
10. 2008.0312A (S. Caltagirone: 415/558-6625)
280 Divisadero Street - east side between Haight and Page Streets. Assessor's Block 1238, Lot 023 - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to convert the carriage house located at the rear of the subject property to a residential unit, resulting in a de facto demolition of the existing building per the demolition standards set forth in Section 1005(f) of the Planning Code and the construction of a new residential building with attached garage. The carriage house is a contributing feature of the Charles Hinkel House property, San Francisco Landmark No. 190. The site is zoned NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
PRESENTERS: Richard Zillman – Owner of Project, Brett Gladstone – Attorney for Project Owner
SPEAKER IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT: Ellen Dudley – Tour Leader for SF City Guide; Judith Centonie – General Contractor; Jason Allen –Roumon – President of Victorian Alliance; Ben Allison – President of Alamo Square Neighborhood Association; Skeeter Jones – Builder; Jim Warshell – President of Victorian Alliance; Mark Hulbert – Preservation Architect; Michael Hutter – Har-Bro General Contractor; John Lenon – Artisan; Joseph Meyers – SF Victorian Alliance; Louise Bea – Resident of City and County of SF; Mike Hammonds; Ansel Wettersten; Richard Reutlinger – SF Victorian Alliance; Owen O’Donnell; Roger Reid – SF Victorian Alliance; James Hitchcock; Donald Stroh – SF Victorian Alliance; JoAnn Vandenberg; Robert Speer – Real Estate Broker & SF Victorian Alliance; Susan Van Kuiken – Property Owner and Alamo Square Neighborhood Association; Bill Mason – SF Victorian Alliance; Donald Beilke; Stephen Haigh – Neighbor and SF Victorian Alliance; Angela Scott – Neighbor; Bob Bukter – Color Consultant; [Gucioni] – Adjacent Neighbor
SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROJECT: Jack Gold – SF Architectural Heritage
ACTION: Continued to the date yet to be determined or the first date after a publicly noticed site visit.
AYES: Wolfram, Martinez, Matsuda, Damkroger and Hasz
ABSENT: Buckley and Chase
Item 11 was taken out of order and heard after item 9.
11. 2009.0610E (B. Fu: 415.558.6613)
3418- 26th Street – located on the west side between Bartlett Street and Osage Alley, in Assessor’s Block 6529, Lot 034. Request for review pursuant to the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Permit Review Procedures for Historic Resources. The proposed project is to construct a new 13-unit, five-story, 53’-0” tall, residential building on a vacant lot within RTO-M (Residential, Transit Oriented, Mission Neighborhood) District, in a 55-X Height and Bulk District, and within the Mission Area Plan. The Department is reviewing an Environmental Evaluation application and Historic Resource Evaluation Report for the project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Motion
SPEAKER: None
ACTION: No action was taken on this item. However, the Commission commented that the proposal mitigates potential visual impacts.
ADJOURNMENT: 5:00 P.M.
The minutes was proposed for adoption at the Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, March 17, 2010
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Martinez, Matsuda, Wolfram, Damkroger, Chase
ABSENT: Buckley, Hasz
