New Page 1
SAN FRANCISCO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, July 17, 2013
12:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Hasz, Wolfram, Hyland, Johns, Johnck, Matsuda, Pearlman
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT HASZ AT 12:30 PM.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Jeff Joslin – Current Planning Director, Dan Sider, AnMarie Rodgers, Sarah Jones, Steve Wertheim, Preservation Coordinator Tim Frye, and Jonas P. Ionin - Acting 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. PUBLIC COMMENT
SPEAKERS: Katherine Howard, SF Ocean Edge - concerned about the Golden Gate Park Beach Chalet Soccer Field Project.
B. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
1. Director’s Announcements
Preservation Coordinator Frye on behalf of Director Rahaim:
He informed the HPC that the Department’s first Sunday Streets participation at Golden Gate Park was on July 7th. One of the main features of the booth was a map of all the landmarks in the immediate vicinity. It was the most popular map on display. The Department engaged about 175 public members, 50 % of those had never heard of the Planning Department. It was a beneficial endeavor to show the public what the Department does on a daily basis and to get them engaged. The Mission Sunday Streets would be on July 28th, the Department would forward the list of the scheduled events.
2. Mr. Frye’s Review of Past Week’s Events at the Planning Commission, Staff Report and Announcements
· 706 Mission Street Major Permit to Alter was appealed to the Board of Supervisors (BOS). The item was rescheduled for July 23rd at the request of the appellants. Mr. Frye would be presenting on behalf of the HPC.
· The Mills Act application for the Nightingale House on 201 Buchannan Street was continued at the BOS Budget and Finance Committee today, to Wednesday, July 24th. The Department would represent the HPC’s approval of the Mills Act contract.
· Upcoming events, Sunset District Survey – The Department would have another walking tour on Saturday, July 27th, from 11 am – 12:30 pm, meeting at the corner of 36th Avenue and Kirkham Street. Posters would be up and invitations would be sent to all those in the survey area. A community meeting would also be held on Thursday, August 22nd, from 6-8 pm, location yet to be determined. Planners and Chinese translators would be available to assist members of the public.
· SF Heritage and SPUR Task Force Report on Historic Preservation in San Francisco – The Department participated in the Task Force meetings to provide technical assistance, background and programs information of the Department, and the processes of the HPC. The link to the Report was sent by email to the Commissioners. Mr. Frye invited the HPC to schedule the Report as an item on a future calendar date for discussion that would serve as a forum to comment on the Report.
Commissioner Wolfram requested the link to the Report and information for the Sunset District Survey Tour. Mr. Frye would provide information as requested.
Commissioner Matsuda asked to schedule an informational presentation of the SPUR and SF Heritage Preservation Report. Mr. Frye affirmed.
Commissioner Johns asked Mr. Frye if he would cover the BOS hearing on CEQA. Mr. Frye responded that he would defer to Ms. Jones or Ms. Rodgers to address the BOS’ action later today when they present their item on CEQA on the calendar.
3. Landmark Designation Work Program Quarterly Report
Mr. Frye reported that he would bring the Work Program to the HPC before the end of this year. At that time the Commissioners might want to direct staff to reprioritize and focus on other efforts. The items likely to come before the HPC in the near future would be the Marcus Books, the Cowell House and the New Era Hall. As for the Sunshine School, the Department has secured a pro-bono consultant to write the report, also, the School District is supportive of the design.
Commissioner Pearlman asked how projects in the Work Program move forward in the Department - how projects are assigned and who determined which project gets worked on? Mr. Frye responded that the projects are all in various stages of completion. One would move forward if the owner reaches out and is ready to engage in the designation. Others are in the process of completing background research - which is the “behind-the-scenes” work. He gave an example on the tenants of the New Era Hall who purchased the whole building. The Department reached out to them for a meeting to explain the benefits and responsibilities of designation and hoped for their support. It’s sort of the “behind-the-scenes” work that helps propel the projects forward. The Department works on them equally, but if the HPC gives direction to work on one versus another, the Department could do that. Commissioner Pearlman continued to ask, projects such as the Sunshine School were placed on the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) Work Program in the 2005/2006 and wondered if that was a normal path that it took many years. Mr. Frye responded that unfortunately it took some time to get these before the Commission.
Commissioner Wolfram asked if similar properties such as the modern houses might be brought forward to the HPC together as a group when the materials are presented to the public. He remembered when the HPC Work Program was developed it was not random. He wanted to make sure the message is not random when projects actually go through the public process, because people are not aware of this part of it.
President Hasz asked, who would be doing the pro-bono work for the Sunshine School. Mr. Frye responded that Bridget Maley, former president of the LPAB.
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
4. President’s Report and Announcements - None
5. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for June 19, 2013
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Hyland, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman, Wolfram, Hasz
6. Commission Comments & Questions
Commissioner Pearlman announced that next Wednesday an all-day forum between the California Preservation Foundation and the Port would be held at the Port’s offices on CEQA and Historic Resources. He would be attending and could report back.
Commissioner Johns announced that Peter Stackpole’s photographs of Bay Bridge construction during 1935-1936 are exhibited at the Oakland Museum of California.
Commissioner Matsuda reported that the Commission Secretary Search Subcommittees met on June 27th and would be meeting again on July 31st.
D. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
7. 2011.0687L (MARY BROWN: 415-575-9074)
1712-1716 FILLMORE STREET – east side between Post Street and Sutter Street; Assessor’s Block 0684; Lot 020. Consideration to initiate Landmark designation of 1712-1716 Fillmore Street, historically known as Jimbo’s Bop City and Marcus Books, as an Article 10 Landmark pursuant to Section 1004.1 of the Planning Code. The building was added to the Landmark Designation Work Program on June 15, 2011. Further consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Board of Supervisors will occur at a future public hearing and will be noticed separately for a future date.
(Proposed for Continuance to August 21, 2013)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to August 21, 2013
AYES: Hyland, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman, Wolfram, Hasz
E. REGULAR CALENDAR
8. (TIM FRYE: 415-575-6822)
BUSH STREET COTTAGE ROW MINI-PARK TREE REMOVAL & REFORESTATION – Bound by Bush Sutter, Webster, and Fillmore Streets. Informational Presentation by the Recreation & Parks Department on selective tree removal and reforestation within the Bush Street Cottage row mini-park. Removal of the trees is not subject to a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. The Bush Street Cottage Row Landmark District was designated to Article 10 of the Planning Code in 1991. The mini-park is located in a P (Public) Zoning District surrounded by a RM-1 (Residential-Mixed Low Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
PRESENTER: Dennis Kern, Director of Operation for Recreation and Park Department
SPEAKERS: + Marvin Lambert, Resident near the park - Supported removal of the trees
= Rose Hilson - recommended cultural infusion of the Nahomachi era in the park.
- Katherine Howard - stated tree canopies are diminishing in SF and explain why trees are worth for a bit of efforts and financial liabilities.
+ Mary King, Resident near the park - admitted the mistake was made in planting the redwoods and would like to reforest with Japanese maples.
+ Trish Maholack, Resident near the park - supported the Recreation and Park position.
9. (DAN SIDER: 415-558-6697)
MARKET ANALYSIS OF SALE OF TDR FROM PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTIES - Presentation of a recently completed study of the City’s TDR program including a market analysis which informs a possible sale of TDR from City-owned properties.
Preliminary Recommendation: Discussion only.
PRESENTER: Marie Munson, from Seifel Consulting Inc.
SPEAKERS: + Edward Suhaski, Forest Property Group - in favor of the City to sell TDR at a price fixed of $35.00 per square foot, in part to help fix the Veterans’ building.
+ G G Platt - in favor of the document but believed public TDR can only be used on buildings that have not been rehabbed and was concerned about evaluating the TDR on the Port’s boundary.
ACTION: None - Informational
10. 2013.0911U (ANMARIE RODGERS: 415-558-6395)
California Environmental Quality Act Procedures, Appeal of Exempt Project Modifications. The Historic Preservation Commission will consider proposals that would provide for an appeal of a Planning Department determination that an exempt project modification does not require a new decision under the California Environmental Quality Act and make environmental findings. One proposal is a draft ordinance [BF 13-0464] introduced by Supervisor Kim that would provide for appeal to the Planning Commission. The other proposal is a pending ordinance yet to be introduced by Supervisor Chiu that would provide for appeal hearing before the Environmental Review Officer. The Department recommends a third option that instead of an appeal hearing, a procedure would be established that would provide for a written reconsideration by the Environmental Review Officer.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation of Approval with Modifications
SPEAKERS: + Eric Brooks, Coordinator of the CEQA Improvement Team - stated the appeal would not delay the project and it is not an appeal to CEQA. The appeal gives the public an opportunity for the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) to reconsider the determination.
+ Tes Welborn - stated that the appeal hearing doesn’t stop the project; it gives the public a chance to lay out new information to the ERO; and to have a public record of the hearing.
+ Hiroshi Fukuda, Chair of the Coalition of the SF Neighborhood Land Use and Housing Committee - stated the public needs a method to appeal the ERO decision.
+ Susan Vaughan, Sierra Club - supported the legislation only if there’s a way to appeal the ERO modification determination; cited examples of Cat Ex cases on synthetic turf installation on soccer fields in the City to illustrate the Board of Appeals was not helpful in the soccer field struggles.
+ Howard Wong, represented San Francisco Tomorrow - stated that a public open forum for appeal as a part of the Planning Commission would not add extra cost or time, and would assure the ERO in making a proper judgment. It probably could eliminate the need to appeal to the Board of Appeals that is costly and difficult for anyone to win.
- Tim Colen, SF Housing Action Coalition - concerned the appeal hearing might open up more avenues to more appeals. Appeal hearings would delay and add cost to projects. The Coalition was not comfortable with the discretion being taken away from the ERO.
+ Rose Hilson - stated the advocates have compromised and as a public benefit she urged the ERO hearing to be adopted and televised.
+ Katherine Howard, Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance - stated that the Board of Appeals does not have the environmental or historic background. They would defer CEQA issues to the ERO for opinions; taking the appeal to them is not a good option. She supported a televised public appeal hearing before the ERO.
+ G G Platt - stated that having the ERO to show up in a public arena for appeals is important; that she experienced the ERO has on occasions took stance that was not in the community’s best interest; that getting 4 out of 5 votes from the Board of Appeals is nearly impossible. It is also costly and time consuming.
+ Bill Sugaya - commented that appealing to the Board of Appeals (instead to the ERO) is logistically problematic and could delay the project longer; that the City had occasionally made incorrect decisions (point in case – the Bicycle Plan and the Housing Elements EIR); asked the HPC not to take into consideration that appeal hearing would eat up resources of the Planning staff.
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval without Modifications.
AYES: Hyland, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Wolfram, Hasz
NAYS: Pearlman
RESOLUTION: R-708
11. 2013.0808U (STEVE WERTHEIM: 415-558-6612)
JAPANTOWN CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY (JCHESS) – Informational Update on the strategy to ensure that Japantown will thrive as a culturally rich, authentic, and economically vibrant neighborhood, which will serve as the cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American communities for generations to come. The JCHESS identifies areas of concern to the community, and identifies numerous recommendations for how to address these concerns. It is the first document in San Francisco to focus specifically on how to preserve and promote a neighborhood’s cultural heritage. The JCHESS is a collaborative effort between the Japantown Community, the Planning Department, and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. This informational item will update the Commission on the content of the JCHESS and the process that led to its creation. The project sponsors would like to return to the Commission in September for a Resolution of support for this strategy. Information on the JCHESS is available at http://japantown.sfplanning.org
SPEAKERS: + Bob Hamaguchi, Member of the Japantown Organizing Committee - gave a brief history on the years of organizing community participations and outreach efforts has culminated the JCHESS Plan that sustain and perpetuate the culture and identity of Japantown. He urged the HPC to endorse the Plan when it returns in September.
+ Hiroshi Fukuda, Job Representative to the Japantown Committee - thanked the Planning staff and the Planning Commission for deferring the plan back to the community thus allowing the community to proceed with the Plan.
+ Paul Wermer - commented that it was a big deal that the Plan expands on the cultural heritage and history of the people.
+ Karen Kai - described how the planning process evolved from a typical planning process that stresses on development to one that conserves, preserves and forwards Japantown as a social community as well as a business community.
+ Robert Sakai, Resident and Property Owner - supported and asked HPC to endorsement the Plan.
+ Kenneth Kaji - stated that culture has a role and needs to be supported and sustained through key administrative policies.
+ Greg Viloria, Community Aide for the Japan Task Forces - asked the HPC to support the Plan.
+ Rose Hilson - asked HPC to endorse the Plan because it helps continue the ties through culture that connect people around the world to Japantown and Japan.
+ Alice Kawahatsu, Representative of the Konko Church - in support of the Plan.
+ Bill Sugaya, Planning Commissioner speaking for himself - commented on the importance of crafting a resolution in a form such that it would bring identified social heritage and cultural resources in the Plan forward to the HPC’s Work Program. He hoped Commissioner Martinez’ ideas on how to achieve this could be brought to the Historic Preservation and the Planning Commissions.
+ G G Platt asked to get a list that has all the cultural resources separately ahead of time so the Plan could be supported through the Historic Preservation Fund Committee.
ACTION: None – Informational
Adjournment: 4:34 PM
The minutes was proposed for adoption at the Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday, August 7, 2013
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Hasz, Hyland Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman, Wolfram
