Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Preservation Alternatives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews preservation alternatives for Woolsey and Lake Merced projects; asks for clustered‑preservation options
Summary
The commission reviewed preservation alternatives for two preservation‑sensitive projects: the University Mound Nursery (770 Wolsey) draft EIR, where staff found the proposed project would cause significant, unavoidable impacts but offered full‑ and partial‑preservation alternatives; and the Lake Merced recreation proposal (520 John Muir), where commissioners asked staff to explore alternatives that keep a cohesive cluster of historic shooting fields and buildings.
The Historic Preservation Commission spent substantial time on two lengthy environmental‑review items and asked staff to refine preservation alternatives so the city can balance new recreational or housing objectives with historic‑resource values.
For 770 Wolsey (the University Mound Nursery), staff and the project sponsor presented the draft environmental‑impact report and three alternatives: no project, full preservation and partial preservation. Staff concluded the proposed project would demolish the majority of greenhouses and associated structures and would cause a significant, unavoidable impact to the historic resource. The full‑preservation alternative retains 11 greenhouses and other features and would avoid material impairment, while the partial‑preservation alternative would retain six greenhouses and some structures but still cause material impairment. Sponsor representatives described a revised plan that reconstructs two greenhouses and the boiler house as part of a publicly accessible community parcel and said they have support from the Friends of Woolsey.
Commissioners found the alternatives to be a reasonable range for EIR analysis but requested clearer programming details for retained greenhouse spaces and asked for precise affordable‑housing counts under each alternative; staff confirmed an erratum and clarified that Alternative B would include three affordable units (not five as misprinted).
On the Lake Merced site (520 John Muir Drive), Rec and Park and planning staff described a proposed recreation facility that would remove most existing structures and construct new clustered program buildings and shoreline amenities. Staff presented preservation alternatives that would retain a subset of steep firing fields and three to four contributing buildings (full preservation) or a smaller cluster (partial preservation). Commissioners recommended exploring an additional variant that keeps a single ski/shooting field and clusters the existing buildings and shell house to create a cohesive preservation node, which would facilitate interpretation while freeing space for new amenities.
Both items will go before the Planning Commission for EIR hearings; written comments on the Wolsey draft EIR are due by Aug. 9.
